Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2004AP1440 Labor Ready, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission

By: dmc-admin//June 27, 2005//

2004AP1440 Labor Ready, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission

By: dmc-admin//June 27, 2005//

Listen to this article

“Before Labor Ready assigned Powell to any temporary work, it insisted that Powell complete its Application for Employment, and that he sign in at least two places designated as ‘Employee Signature.’ As we show below, this document describes the relationship between Powell and Labor Ready, but makes no reference to any obligations of the entities for whom, upon assignment by Labor Ready, Powell might ultimately perform work. Labor Ready is the employer, Powell is the employee, and Powell agrees to perform tasks for Labor Ready ‘customers.’ Powell must be at the Labor Ready dispatch hall in order to be assigned to work for a customer. Powell is paid by Labor Ready, not by the customer. In fact, Powell released the customers from liability should he be injured….

“Labor Ready also provides the facility at which Powell and others must appear, and must wait, in order to be considered for assignment to a customer. The dispatch hall is for the convenience of Labor Ready; the dispatch hall allows Labor Ready to immediately determine the availability of a person to send on assignment and avoid the need to employ people to telephone potential workers. This additional aspect of control justifies application of worker’s compensation protections to events that occur at the Labor Ready dispatch hall premises. …

“In summary, the contract and the conduct of the parties have sufficient relevant indicia of an employer-employee relationship. We conclude that for purposes of worker’s compensation statutes, Powell was Labor Ready’s employee at the time he was injured. See Wis. Stat. § 102.07(4)(a).”

Finally, where claimant was at the employer’s premises at the employer’s direction for a work-related purpose and pursuant to the employer’s direction, claimant was Performing service growing out of an incidental to his employment” at the time he was injured.

Accordingly, claimant is entitled to workers’ compensation coverage.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, White, J., Kessler, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Richard E. Ceman Jr., Milwaukee; Amy J. Wilkinson, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Jerome S. Schmidt, Madison; Patrick M. Cooper, Milwaukee

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests