Department Of Labor & Industries v. Tradesmen International, Llc, 470 P.3d 519

Tradesmen International (staffing company) assigned temporary workers to Dochnahl Construction under a Client Service Agreement (CSA).
The CSA made Dochnahl "solely responsible for directing, supervising and controlling" Tradesmen’s employees at client job sites and for site‑specific safety training and equipment (excluding some basic PPE), while Tradesmen handled payroll and general training and performed pre‑assignment "walkouts."
A Dochnahl supervisor moved a Tradesmen temporary worker to an uninspected Palatine Avenue job site without notifying Tradesmen, contrary to Tradesmen’s protocol for client notification before site moves.
The Department of Labor & Industries inspected the Palatine site, found multiple WISHA violations, and cited both Dochnahl and Tradesmen for two serious violations (fall protection and scaffold design).
An IAJ, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (3–0), and the superior court all concluded Tradesmen was not an employer for WISHA purposes and vacated the citation; the Department appealed, urging application of its internal Dual Employer Directive ("knew or clearly should have known" standard).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Department's Dual Employer Directive (knowledge standard) governs liability	Apply Directive: primary employer may be cited if it knew or clearly should have known of violations	Directive is only an internal policy statement (not APA‑promulgated) and thus not binding; alternatively, Tradesmen lacked knowledge	Directive is a nonbinding policy statement; court declines to apply its "knew or clearly should have known" standard
Which legal test determines employer status for WISHA citation	Department: primary employer can be liable under Directive/knowledge approach; reasonable diligence could show knowledge	Use Washington's economic realities test for leased/temporary workers; focus on right to control	Court applies the economic realities test rather than the Directive standard
Whether Tradesmen was an employer under the economic realities test	Department emphasizes factors favoring employer (pays wages, handles payroll)	Tradesmen lacked site supervision/control, client (Dochnahl) had sole responsibility to direct/supervise and could move worker without notice	Substantial evidence supports Board findings that Tradesmen lacked control over the worker and site; key factors weigh against employer status, so Tradesmen not liable

Erection Co. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 160 Wn. App. 194 (2011) (standard of review for Board factual findings and liberal WISHA interpretation)
Potelco, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 191 Wn. App. 9 (2015) (adopts seven‑factor economic realities test for leased/temporary workers)
Martinez Melgoza & Assoc., Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 125 Wn. App. 843 (2005) (definition of employer under WISHA and applicability to entities that pay employees)
J.E. Dunn Nw., Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 139 Wn. App. 35 (2007) (agency policy statements not binding rules when not promulgated under the APA)