A state employe who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by a public employer in violation of par. (ar)
may file a complaint with the personnel commission alleging discrimination or discharge, within 30 days after the employe received knowledge of the discrimination or discharge. A public employe other than a state employe who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by a public employer in violation of par. (ar)
may file a complaint with the division of equal rights alleging discrimination or discharge, within 30 days after the employe received knowledge of the discrimination or discharge.
Upon receipt of a complaint, the personnel commission or the division of equal rights, whichever is applicable, shall, except as provided in s. 230.45 (1m)
, investigate the complaint and determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a violation of par. (ar)
has occurred. If the personnel commission or the division of equal rights finds probable cause it shall attempt to resolve the complaint by conference, conciliation or persuasion. If the complaint is not resolved, the personnel commission or the division of equal rights shall hold a hearing on the complaint within 60 days after receipt of the complaint unless both parties to the proceeding agree otherwise. Within 30 days after the close of the hearing, the personnel commission or the division of equal rights shall issue its decision. If the personnel commission or the division of equal rights determines that a violation of par. (ar)
has occurred, it shall order appropriate relief for the employe, including restoration of the employe to his or her former position with back pay, and shall order any action necessary to ensure that no further discrimination occurs. If the personnel commission or the division of equal rights determines that there has been no violation of par. (ar)
, it shall issue an order dismissing the complaint.
Orders of the personnel commission and the division of equal rights under this subsection are subject to judicial review under ch. 227
(9) Coordination of state safety and health programs.
The department shall coordinate state safety and health programs and shall plan and conduct comprehensive safety and health loss prevention programs for state employes and facilities.
(10) Exception for certain political subdivisions.
The department is not required to expend any resources to enforce this section in political subdivisions having 10 or less employes unless it has received a complaint.
Flushing devices for urinals.
The department shall not promulgate any rules which either directly or indirectly prohibit the use of manual flushing devices for urinals. The department shall take steps to encourage the use of manual flushing devices for urinals.
History: 1977 c. 418
Storage of flammable and combustible liquids. 101.09(1)(a)
"Combustible liquid" means a liquid having a flash point at or above 100 degrees fahrenheit and below 200 degrees fahrenheit.
"Flammable liquid" means a liquid having a flash point below 100 degrees fahrenheit.
"Flash point" means the minimum temperature at which a flammable or combustible liquid will give off sufficient flammable vapors to form an ignitable mixture with air near the surface of the liquid or within the vessel which contains the liquid.
Except as provided under pars. (b)
, every person who constructs, owns or controls a tank for the storage, handling or use of flammable or combustible liquid shall comply with the standards adopted under sub. (3)
This section does not apply to storage tanks which require a hazardous waste license under s. 291.25
This section does not apply to storage tanks which are installed above ground level and which are less than 5,000 gallons in capacity.
This section does not apply to a pressurized natural gas pipeline system regulated under 49 CFR 192
The department shall promulgate by rule construction, maintenance and abandonment standards applicable to tanks for the storage, handling or use of flammable and combustible liquids, and to the property and facilities where the tanks are located, for the purpose of protecting the waters of the state from harm due to contamination by flammable and combustible liquids. The rule shall comply with ch. 160
. The rule may include different standards for new and existing tanks, but all standards shall provide substantially similar protection for the waters of the state. The rule shall include maintenance requirements related to the detection and prevention of leaks. The rule may require any person supplying heating oil to any noncommercial storage tank for consumptive use on the premises to submit to the department, within 30 days after the department requests, the location, contents and size of any such tank.
The department may transfer any information which the department receives under par. (a)
to any other agency or governmental unit. The department and any such agency shall treat the name of the owner and the location of any noncommercial storage tank which stores heating oil for consumptive use on the premises, required to be submitted to the department under par. (a)
, as confidential and shall not permit inspection or copying under s. 19.35
of any record containing the information.
The rule promulgated under par. (a)
may require the certification or registration of persons who install, remove, clean, line, perform tightness testing on and inspect tanks and persons who perform site assessments. Any rule requiring certification or registration shall also authorize the revocation or suspension of the certification or registration.
The department shall issue orders directing and requiring compliance with the rules and standards of the department adopted under this section whenever, in the judgment of the department, the rules or standards are threatened with violation, are being violated or have been violated.
The circuit court for any county where violation of such an order occurs has jurisdiction to enforce the order by injunctive and other appropriate relief.
Any person who violates this section or any rule or order adopted under this section shall forfeit not less than $10 nor more than $1,000 for each violation. Each violation of this section or any rule or order under this section constitutes a separate offense and each day of continued violation is a separate offense.
Employer's duty to furnish safe employment and place. 101.11(1)(1)
Every employer shall furnish employment which shall be safe for the employes therein and shall furnish a place of employment which shall be safe for employes therein and for frequenters thereof and shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, and shall adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render such employment and places of employment safe, and shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety, and welfare of such employes and frequenters. Every employer and every owner of a place of employment or a public building now or hereafter constructed shall so construct, repair or maintain such place of employment or public building as to render the same safe.
No employer shall require, permit or suffer any employe to go or be in any employment or place of employment which is not safe, and no such employer shall fail to furnish, provide and use safety devices and safeguards, or fail to adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render such employment and place of employment safe, and no such employer shall fail or neglect to do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety or welfare of such employes and frequenters; and no employer or owner, or other person shall hereafter construct or occupy or maintain any place of employment, or public building, that is not safe, nor prepare plans which shall fail to provide for making the same safe.
No employe shall remove, displace, damage, destroy or carry off any safety device or safeguard furnished and provided for use in any employment or place of employment, nor interfere in any way with the use thereof by any other person, nor shall any such employe interfere with the use of any method or process adopted for the protection of any employe in such employment or place of employment or frequenter of such place of employment, nor fail or neglect to do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety or welfare of such employes or frequenters.
This section applies to community-based residential facilities as defined in s. 50.01 (1g)
History: 1971 c. 185
; Stats. 1971 s. 101.11; 1975 c. 413
; 1987 a. 161
See note to 895.045, citing Lovesee v. Allied Development Corp. 45 W (2d) 340, 173 NW (2d) 196.
Where an apartment complex was managed for a fee by a management company, the company was carrying on a business there. Reduction of rent to one of the tenants for caretaking services constituted employment on the premises. A tenant who fell on the icy parking lot after the caretaker knew of the condition need only prove negligence in maintaining the premises. Wittka v. Hartnell, 46 W (2d) 374, 175 NW (2d) 248.
A public sidewalk is not made a place of employment merely because an employer constructed it and kept it free of ice and snow. Petroski v. Eaton Yale & Towne, Inc. 47 W (2d) 617, 178 NW (2d) 53.
The fact that a violation of the safe-place statute is found puts the burden on the owner to rebut the presumption of causation but does not establish as a matter of law that the defendant's negligence was greater than the plaintiff's. Frederick v. Hotel Investments, Inc. 48 W (2d) 429, 180 NW (2d) 562.
A store must be held to have had constructive notice of a dangerous condition when it displayed shaving cream in spray cans on a counter and a 70-year old woman fell in cream sprayed on the white floor. Steinhorst v. H. C. Prange Co. 48 W (2d) 679, 180 NW (2d) 525.
Mere existence of a step up into a hospital lavatory is not an unsafe condition. Prelipp v. Wausau Memorial Hospital, 50 W (2d) 27, 183 NW (2d) 24.
Failure to light a parking lot can support a safe-place action but the evidence must show how long the light was burned out to constitute constructive notice. Low v. Siewert, 54 W (2d) 251, 195 NW (2d) 451.
A parking lot owned by a city which is a continuation of a store parking lot, used by the public for attending the city zoo and the store, even though maintained by the private property owner, is not a place of employment. Gordon v. Schultz Savo Stores, Inc. 54 W (2d) 692, 196 NW (2d) 633.
Detailed construction specifications and the presence of engineers to insure compliance does not manifest control over the project so as to make the commission liable. Berger v. Metropolitan Sewerage Comm. 56 W (2d) 741, 203 NW (2d) 87.
In a safe-place action the employe's contributory negligence is less when his act or omission has been committed in the performance of his duties. McCrossen v. Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. 59 W (2d) 245, 208 NW (2d) 148.
A pier at a beach open to the public for a fee constitutes a place of employment. Any distinction between licensees and invitees is irrelevant, and the statute imposes a higher duty as to safety than the common law. Gould v. Allstar Ins. Co. 59 W (2d) 355, 208 NW (2d) 388.
A private road on the ground of a private racetrack which connected the track and a parking lot is subject to this section as to frequenters. Gross v. Denow, 61 W (2d) 40, 212 NW (2d) 2.
Causal negligence sustained where elevator had by-pass switch in violation of Wis. Adm. Code section Ind 4.60 (1) (e), May, 1971. Sampson v. Laskin, 66 W (2d) 318, 224 NW (2d) 594.
A one-eighth-inch variance in elevation between the sides of the ramp joint was too slight as a matter of law to constitute a violation of the safe-place statute. Balas v. St. Sebastian's Congregation, 66 W (2d) 421, 225 NW (2d) 428.
An employer may be held liable under the safe-place statute not only where he fails to construct or maintain safety-structures such as a fence, but also where he knowingly permits employes or frequenters to venture into a dangerous area. Kaiser v. Cook, 67 W (2d) 460, 227 NW (2d) 50.
Safe-place statute applies only to unsafe physical conditions, not to activities conducted on premises. Korenak v. Curative Workshop Adult Rehabil. Ctr. 71 W (2d) 77, 237 NW (2d) 43.
Discussion of contractor's liability under safe-place law for injury to sub-contractor's employe. Barth v. Downey Co., Inc. 71 W (2d) 775, 239 NW (2d) 92.
Time element of constructive notice of safe-place defect discussed. Buerosse v. Dutchland Dairy Restaurants, 72 W (2d) 239, 240 NW (2d) 176.
Retention of control and supervision is required for recovery against general contractor by subcontractor's employe. Lemacher v. Circle Const. Co., Inc. 72 W (2d) 245, 240 NW (2d) 179.
The length of time a safe-place defect must exist, in order to impose constructive notice of it on an owner, varies according to the nature of the business, the nature of the defect, and the public policy involved. May v. Skelley Oil Co. 83 W (2d) 30, 264 NW (2d) 574 (1978).
See note to 895.045, citing Brons v. Bischoff, 89 W (2d) 80, 277 NW (2d) 854 (1979).
Indemnity in safe-place action creates effect identical to that of contribution. Barrons v. J. H. Findorff & Sons, Inc. 89 W (2d) 444, 278 NW (2d) 827 (1979).
Non-negligent indemnitor was liable to indemnitee whose breach of safe-place duty was solely responsible for damages, under circumstances of case. Dykstra v. Arthur G. McKee & Co. 92 W (2d) 17, 284 NW (2d) 692 (Ct. App. 1979); (aff'd) 100 W (2d) 120, 301 NW (2d) 201 (1981).
Architect's liability discussed. Hortman v. Becker Const. Co., Inc. 92 W (2d) 210, 284 NW (2d) 621 (1979).
Safe employment and safe place of employment distinguished. Leitner v. Milwaukee County, 94 W (2d) 186, 287 NW (2d) 803 (1980).
Evidence of prior accident was admissible to prove notice of unsafe condition. Callan v. Peters Construction Co. 94 W (2d) 225, 288 NW (2d) 146 (Ct. App. 1979).
That lease allocates safe place duties between owner and employer/tenant does not nullify mutually shared statutory duties. Hannebaum v. Dirienzo & Bomier, 162 W (2d) 488, 469 NW (2d) 900 (Ct. App. 1991).
Safe place duty to keep swimming pool in a condition to protect customers from injury is overcome when person unreasonably dives into pool of unknown depth. Wisnicky v. Fox Hills Inn, 163 W (2d) 1023, 473 NW (2d) 523 (Ct. App. 1991).
A county house of correction is subject to the safe place statute. Henderson v. Milwaukee County, 198 W (2d) 748, 543 NW (2d) 544 (Ct. App. 1995).
Safe-place statute not extended to vehicles. Hopkins v. Ros Stores, Inc. 750 F Supp. 379 (1990).
Excavations; protection of adjoining property and buildings. 101.111(1)(1)
In this section "excavator" means any owner of an interest in land making or causing to be made an excavation.
(2) Cave-in prevention.
Any excavator shall protect the excavation site in such a manner so as to prevent the soil of adjoining property from caving in or settling.
(3) Liability for underpinning and foundation extensions. 101.111(3)(a)(a)
If the excavation is made to a depth of 12 feet or less below grade, the excavator may not be held liable for the expense of any necessary underpinning or extension of the foundations of buildings on adjoining properties.
If the excavation is made to a depth in excess of 12 feet below grade, the excavator shall be liable for the expense of any necessary underpinning or extension of the foundations of any adjoining buildings below the depth of 12 feet below grade. The owners of adjoining buildings shall be liable for the expense of any necessary underpinning or extension of the foundations of their buildings to the depth of 12 feet below grade.
Unless waived by adjoining owners, at least 30 days prior to commencing the excavation the excavator shall notify, in writing, all owners of adjoining buildings of his or her intention to excavate. The notice shall state that adjoining buildings may require permanent protection. The owners of adjoining property shall have access to the excavation site for the purpose of protecting their buildings.
(5) Employes not liable.
No worker who is an employe of an excavator may be held liable for his or her employer's failure to comply with this section.
(6) Failure to comply; injunction.
If any excavator fails to comply with this section, any aggrieved person may commence an action to obtain an order under ch. 813
directing such excavator to comply with this section and restraining the excavator from further violation thereof. If the aggrieved person prevails in the action, he or she shall be reimbursed for all his or her costs and disbursements together with such actual attorney fees as may be approved by the court.
Subject to par. (b)
, this section applies to any excavation made after January 1, 1978.
This section does not apply to any excavation made under a contract awarded on or before January 1, 1978.
History: 1977 c. 88
Approval and inspection of public buildings and places of employment and components. 101.12(1)
Except for plans that are reviewed by the department of health and family services under ss. 50.02 (2) (b)
and 50.36 (2)
, the department shall require the submission of essential drawings, calculations and specifications for public buildings, public structures and places of employment including the following components:
Heating, ventilation, air conditioning and fire detection, prevention or suppression systems.
Elevators, escalators, ski lift and towing devices and power dumbwaiters.
Plans of said buildings, structures and components shall be examined for compliance with the rules of the department and a statement of the examination returned to the designer and owner before construction is started. Nothing in this section shall relieve the designer of the responsibility for designing a safe building, structure or component.
Accept the examination of essential drawings, calculations and specifications in accordance with sub. (1)
performed by cities of the 1st class provided the same are examined in a manner approved by the department.