Rivera v. Green Giant Co.

Decision Date22 November 1966
Docket NumberNo. A--622,A--622
Citation93 N.J.Super. 6,224 A.2d 505
PartiesJuan Antonio RIVERA, Petitioner-Respondent, v. GREEN GIANT COMPANY, Respondent-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Sidney M. Schreiber, Newark, for appellant(Schreiber, Lancaster & Demos, Newark, attorneys).

Sol D. Kapelsohn, Newark, for respondent(Kapelsohn, Lerner, Leuchter & Reitman, Newark, attorneys, Lawrence E. Maisel, Newark, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges GAULKIN, LEWIS and LABRECQUE.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

LEWIS, J.A.D.

The Division of Workmen's Compensation determined that New Jersey had jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's claim for compensation arising from a work-connected accident which occurred in Maryland.The sole issue tried was that of jurisdiction.Since a number of other claims that stem from the same accident are pending before the Division, we granted leave to appeal.

The principal parties involved are:

Department of Labor, Migration Division, of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico(herein Migration Division).It recruits and registers laborers for seasonal farm employment on the mainland of the United States.

Glassboro Service Association, Inc.(herein Association), a New Jersey corporation, which acts as a migrant workers supply agency for agricultural farms in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania, and is represented in Puerto Rico by Garden State Service Cooperative Association, Inc.(herein Garden State).

AppellantGreen Giant Company(herein Green Giant), a Minnesota corporation, which operates farms in Delaware and Maryland.

PetitionerJuan Antonio Rivera, one of several Puerto Rican workers who, on June 20, 1964, were involved in a bus accident while in the employ of Green Giant.

On February 29, 1964 the Association, by its agent Garden State, executed in Puerto Rico a so-called master agreement captioned, 'Agreement Between Employers and Puerto Rican Agricultural Workers--1964.'The document, approved by the Puerto Rican Secretary of Labor, is printed in Spanish and English and provides, Inter alia: 'Employer' means the 'Association'; the term 'Grower' means a member of the Association who has agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement.The workers are recruited to work only for the Association or a grower as defined in the contract, and the Association is required to guarantee them minimum hours of agricultural or related work under specified standards and approved conditions.Employment compensation is to be calculated by the Association and the termination and discharge procedure can be effected only at its camp.Both Association and grower are to maintain work records, assume responsibility to the workers for stated services and privileges, and 'bring and maintain the Worker within the jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation Laws of the State in which the Worker shall be employed.'In a concluding paragraph it is agreed that the Association and grower 'shall at all times be jointly and severally responsible for the terms of this Agreement.'

On March 27, 1964 Association entered into a contract with Green Giant, therein referred to as 'Employer,' under which the latter proposed to employ 585 agricultural workers to be supplied by the Association, for the period of April 15, 1964 through June 30, 1964.Green Giant agreed to pay 5 1/2% Of its gross payroll as its share of the cost of operating the Association's camp at Glassboro, New Jersey, and expressly assumed all obligations of the Association under the master agreement.

On June 1, 1964 Rivera, who had previously registered with the Migration Division for agricultural labor in the United States, signed and received a copy of the master agreement.Thereafter, on the same day, he was flown with a group of 80 to 90 workers to Kennedy Airport.From New York, the men were transported by bus to the Glassboro camp.

Rafael Muniz, an agent of the Migration Division assigned to the Glassboro camp for the 1964 farming season, testified as to the procedure that was followed upon the arrival of the workers.He stated, in substance, that the men were lined up, checked by name, given a badge with a number, served a meal, and requested to attend an orientation session.They were then informed by loud speaker of the various farmers' needs 'and usually the men volunteer, they sign in and later on the same day usually they are taken to the farm by the grower.'

When interrogated with respect to workers who went to work for Green Giant during 1964, Muniz replied that after orientation the workers were informed that representatives from Green Giant had arrived and that one of them would explain the working conditions, regulations and wages at their farms.The witness continued:

'After that, of course, the men are asked--I very much remember in '64 men were asked on a voluntary basis--let's say we need 40 men, Green Giant is here, they need 40 men.They answer the call and sign in for Green Giant.After the men were selected by the Green Giant representative, then at the same time transportation is provided by Green Giant which would arrive at the camp, buses.'

William Hitch, one of the two representatives of Green Giant at the Glassboro camp on June 1, admitted under cross-examination that his company had the right to refuse any worker for any reason whatsoever and, similarly, a worker could reject employment by Green Giant.He further testified that the latter furnished the transportation for its workers from Glassboro to the Green Giant camp in Delaware where they were given a physical examinatioin before commencing work.

The testimony of Rivera was to the effect that he missed the orientation session and the talk given by Green Giant's representative at Glassboro because he had gone to the 'men's room' and 'I went with a couple of friends toward the canteen.'However, he testified that he was told that he was included in a group of 19 assigned to work for Green Giant in the asparagus fields.He also stated that when he boarded the Green Giant bus he and his companions 'were checked again,' and, when they arrived at the farm in Delaware, they were given a physical examination.Thereafter Rivera worked for Green Giant until the mishap on June 20.

The judge of compensation found that the preponderance of credible proofs established that the employment contract between Rivera and Green Giant was made in New Jersey.

In urging this court to reverse the judgment of the Division, appellant argues: (1) New Jersey should not assume jurisdiction since the master agreement was executed in Puerto Rico and the accident did not occur in this State; (2) if the contract for hire was not entered into in Puerto Rico, then it was made in Delaware; and (3) in any event, New Jersey should, for public policy reasons, disclaim jurisdiction.

In the relevant areas of workmen's compensation and contract law, we are guided...

To continue reading

Request your trial

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex
9 cases
  • Arcell v. Ashland Chemical Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • July 14, 1977
    ...2 N.J. 305, 308, 66 A.2d 438 (1949); Estelle v. Red Bank Bd. of Ed., 14 N.J. 256, 260, 102 A.2d 44 (1954); Rivera v. Green Giant Co., 93 N.J.Super. 6, 11, 224 A.2d 505 (App.Div.1966), aff'd o.b. 50 N.J. 284, 234 A.2d 393 (1967). Therefore, the parties "by mere inaction" agree to the payment......
  • Phillips v. Oneida Motor Freight, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • November 1, 1978
    ...residence of the workman, the situs of the employment relationship or the location of the accident. Ibid; Rivera v. Green Giant Co., 93 N.J.Super. 6, 224 A.2d 505 (App.Div.1966), aff'd o.b. 50 N.J. 284, 234 A.2d 393 (1967). However, from an early date, New Jersey courts have accepted jurisd......
  • Moorhead Machinery & Boiler Co. v. Del Valle
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 1996
    ...prevent a contract of hire from coming into existence at the time of the worker's departure for the job); Rivera v. Green Giant Co., 93 N.J.Super. 6, 224 A.2d 505 (App.Div.1966)(even though medical examination was performed at the job site in Delaware, jurisdiction was proper in New Jersey,......
  • Wenzel v. Zantop Air Transport, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • March 15, 1967
    ...Corp., 39 N.J. 507, 511, 189 A.2d 213 (1963); Wilson v. Faull, 27 N.J. 105, 116--117, 141 A.2d 768 (1958); Rivera v. Green Giant Co., 93 N.J.Super. 6, 13, 224 A.2d 505 (App.Div.1966), certification granted 4, N.J. 443, 226 A.2d 432 (1967). It has been said that '(a)s a matter of fairness th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT