Rose v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 22 May 1981
• Docket Number: Nos. 53418,53419,s. 53418
• Citation: 52 Ill.Dec. 59,421 N.E.2d 922,85 Ill.2d 208
• Parties: , 52 Ill.Dec. 59 Marvin ROSE, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Hyster Company, Appellee). John SMITH, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Hyster Company, Appellee).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 922

421 N.E.2d 922

85 Ill.2d 208, 52 Ill.Dec. 59

Marvin ROSE, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Hyster Company, Appellee).

John SMITH, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Hyster Company, Appellee).

Nos. 53418, 53419.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 22, 1981.

James C. Serkland, of Scheele, Serkland & Boyle, Ltd., Chicago, for appellants.

Burgeson, Laughlin, Cunningham & Hare, Chicago (Robert Thomas Newman, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

UNDERWOOD, Justice:

Two employees of respondent Hyster Company were injured playing "flag football" and sought compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 48 par. 138.1 et seq.). An arbitrator for the Industrial Commission awarded compensation. The Commission however, found the injuries did not arise "out of and in the course of" employment and denied compensation. The circuit court of Vermilion County confirmed the Commission, and the employees appealed to this court under our Rule 302(a) (73 Ill.2d R. 302(a)).

In the first of these consolidated cases, cause No. 53418, Marvin Rose, employed by respondent as a parts man, fractured his left wrist in a flag football game on Sunday, October 2, 1976. In cause No. 53419, John Smith, a crane operator for respondent, sustained a fracture of his right ankle on Sunday, September 19, 1976, in a similar game. The claims of both involve the work of an activities committee, and the details regarding it are relevant. The collective bargaining agreement between the employee union and respondent provided that the "Activities Committee" was to be composed of six members appointed by the union, five appointed by the employer, and the 12th member was to be a nonvoting member from the personnel department. The nonunion members were referred to by a union member as "just advisors." The committee meets monthly, apparently in the union office a room in the company plant for which the union pays a monthly rental. The programs of the committee was financed by commissions from vending machines patronized by the employees, the types and locations of the machines and amount of commission being negotiated by the committee with the vendor. Some $24,000 per year was received by the committee and used by it to finance employee social and recreational activities which it selected and approved. Among those activities was the football league composed of five 11-member teams, four of which were Hyster teams captained by Hyster employees. Funds for footballs, colored vests with numerals but not the Hyster name, umpires, trophies, and a party for the winning team were provided by the committee. Games were pre-scheduled, apparently by the team captains, and played on Sundays on noncompany property. Notices relating to the games and other activities could be placed on two bulletin boards used to distribute information regarding both union and company matters. Committee funds were kept in a special account separate from the company's and controlled by the committee and in its name, with checks requiring the signatures of the treasurer and president or vice-president, all of whom were union members, of the committee. Other activities, including a ski club, bowling, basketball, employee Christmas hams or turkeys, and an Easter egg hunt for the employees' children, were also financed and sponsored by the committee. Committee records were kept in the treasurer's home or union office. Results of football games were published in the company newsletter. Claimant Smith testified that a company engineer who had no supervisory authority over him had, in 1972, asked him about playing football, and that a "unit manager" had also asked him to play. It is not contended that employees were subjected to company pressure to join the team.

A number of earlier opinions of this court have considered the compensability of injuries received by employees engaged in organized recreational activities. Whether compensation was awarded in those cases turned upon the degree of employer involvement in and benefits from the activity in which the injury occurred. (Gourley v. Industrial Com. (1981), 84 Ill.2d 303, 49 Ill.Dec. 714, 418 N.E.2d 734; Board of Education v. Industrial Com. (1980), 81 Ill.2d 17, 39 Ill.Dec. 804, 405 N.E.2d 783; Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Com. (1979), 78 Ill.2d 182, 35 Ill.Dec. 546, 399 N.E.2d 612; Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 139, 334 N.E.2d 136; Keystone Steel & Wire Co. v. Industrial Com. (1968), 40 Ill.2d 160, 238 N.E.2d 593; Jewel Tea Co. v. Industrial Com. (1955), 6 Ill.2d 304, 128 N.E.2d 699.) We recently reviewed those cases and others in Gourley. No worthwhile purpose would be achieved by again doing so here, since it is clear that the degree of benefit to the company here and its...