Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Department of Labor and Industries.
| Decision Date | 18 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | 46871-1,Nos. 46869-9,s. 46869-9 |
| Citation | 621 P.2d 147,94 Wn.2d 875 |
| Parties | WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. The DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES of the State of Washington; and G. Lawrence Allyn, Respondents, v. N.A. DEGERSTROM, INC., Respondent, v. The DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES of the State of Washington, Respondent, Lillian M. Montaney, widow of Kenneth L. Montaney, deceased, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Robert V. Holland, Seattle, Gaither M. Kodis, Spokane, for petitioner.
Eugene Arron, Seattle, James Fish, Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Thomas Chapman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Spokane, for respondents.
These cases have not been consolidated, but inasmuch as the central issue in each case is identical, we are disposing of both appeals by this opinion.
The primary issue in both cases is whether the workers were engaged in an activity within the course of their employment at the time of the accidents. Involved in the determination of this issue is the fact that, although each worker was driving his own private car, each received compensation or reimbursement from his employer pursuant to the applicable union contract. It is the terms of these different contracts which the Court of Appeals focuses on in affirming the award of benefits in Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 25 Wash.App. 103, 604 P.2d 1334 (1980), and reversing and dismissing the claim in N.A. Degerstrom, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 25 Wash.App. 97, 604 P.2d 1337 (1980).
The facts in Degerstrom are:
Kenneth Montaney lived in a temporary residence in Spangle, Washington. Montaney was a member of Operating Engineers Local No. 370 and was employed under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
The provisions of the agreement relevant to this case are:
The parties recognize that it is inconvenient to get to the job location because of varying mileages. The employers are accordingly agreeable to pay reimbursed auto expense as an adjustment for out of pocket expense. It is agreed and understood that while traveling to and from work the employees are not within the course and scope of their employment and the relationship of employer-employee does not commence until the applicable hourly wage applies.
On jobs falling within a 15-mile radius from the city center of the following cities, NO TRAVEL PAY SHALL BE PAID: Coeur d'Alene, Walla Walla, Lewiston, Moses Lake, Pasco, and Spokane.
Montaney had been working on road construction near Pullman. He commuted from his temporary residence to the jobsite, a distance of over 60 miles one way. On October 3, 1974, Montaney left the Pullman jobsite to return to Spangle. He stopped en route at a tavern for about an hour and thereafter continued home to Spangle. While traveling on an unfinished roadway (which was a project on which he had also worked), Montaney was killed when his car hit a parked truck.
On November 1, 1974, Lillian Montaney filed a claim for widow's benefits with the Department of Labor and Industries. The Department denied her claim on the grounds that her husband was not within the course of employment at the time of the accident. The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals then reversed the Department's order. The trial court affirmed the Board's order. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and found that the worker was not within the course of employment at the time of the accident.
The facts in Westinghouse are:
G. Lawrence Allyn, now deceased, and his wife Shirley Allyn, lived in Wenatchee, Washington. Allyn was a member of Local 497 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and was employed under an agreement between that union and Westinghouse. The provisions of the agreement relevant to this case are:
3.14A The employer shall pay for traveling time and furnish transportation from shop to job, job to job, and job to shop except under the following conditions:
(3) All electrical contractors subject to the Agreement ... shall compensate workmen the daily travel allowance specified in 3.14B from the nearest temporary headquarters dispatching point to the job....
(4) Workmen employed on jobs of more than thirty (30) man days, located more than seven (7) air miles distance from the City Halls of Wenatchee, ... shall be paid for the daily travel allowances specified in 3.14B...
3.14B Should the employer request workmen to report directly to a job site in their own transportation and put in full eight (8) hours on the job, workmen shall be compensated the following amounts in addition to their regular wages:
Allyn had been working for Westinghouse at Grand Coulee Dam. It was his practice to stay in Coulee City throughout the week and return to his home in Wenatchee on weekends. On December 8, 1975, Allyn, who had spent the weekend in Wenatchee, left his home in the early afternoon to return to work, a trip of approximately 100 miles. On his way to work he was involved in a car accident, suffering injuries from which he died on February 22, 1976.
On March 10, 1976, Shirley A. Allyn filed a claim for widow's benefits with the Department of Labor and Industries. The Department denied her claim on the grounds that the worker was not within the course of employment at the time of the accident. The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals reversed the Department's order. On subsequent appeals by Westinghouse, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Allyn was within the course of his employment at the time of the injury which resulted in his death.
Washington's workers' compensation act provides coverage for those injuries incurred while acting in the course of employment. The act provides:
The benefits of Title 51 RCW shall be provided to each worker receiving an injury, as defined therein, during the course of his or her employment...
RCW 51.32.015.
"Acting in the course of employment" means the worker acting at his or her employer's direction or in the furtherance of his or her employer's business which shall include time spent going to and from work on the jobsite
RCW 51.08.013.
For benefits to be due, the worker must have been within the course of employment. Superior Asphalt & Concrete Co. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 19 Wash.App. 800, 578...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barker, Matter of
...Many other cases arrive at the result and employ a similar analysis to that which I propose. In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Department of Labor, 94 Wash.2d 875, 621 P.2d 147 (1980), the Washington Supreme Court unanimously held that where an employee's collective bargaining agreement cal......
-
Bolin v. Kitsap County
...Aloha Lumber Corp. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 77 Wash.2d 763, 766, 466 P.2d 151 (1970); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 94 Wash.2d 875, 880, 621 P.2d 147 (1980). An exception exists, however, when the employer has a customary or contractual obligation to furn......
-
Brooks v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona, 1
...illustrated by Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Department of Labor and Industries, 25 Wash.App. 103, 604 P.2d 1334, affirmed, 94 Wash.2d 875, 621 P.2d 147 (1980) which treat the issue as one of law instead of fact. On the basis of our analysis of Serrano, supra, we reject those cases.1 The a......
-
Ball-Foster Glass Cont. Co. v. Giovanelli, 77655-5.
...see also Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. Adamo, 113 Wash.App. 166, 169, 52 P.3d 560 (2002); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 94 Wash.2d 875, 880, 621 P.2d 147 (1980). This "coming and going" rule is actually found in the statute, quoted supra, "which shall include time spent......