Wedeck v. Unocal Corp.
69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 501, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9055, 59 Cal. App. 4th 848 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a general employer lends an employee to another employer, a 'special employment' relationship is formed if the borrowing employer has the right to control and direct the employee's work activities. In such cases, the employee is barred by the workers' compensation exclusive remedy rule from bringing a tort action against the special employer for work-related injuries.
Facts:
- Rowena Wedeck, a chemist, was employed by Lab Support, a temporary staffing agency.
- In August 1992, Lab Support assigned Wedeck to work as a full-time chemist at a Unocal Corporation refinery.
- The agreement between Lab Support and Unocal specified that Unocal's manager would provide Wedeck with all 'technical direction.'
- During her time at Unocal, Wedeck received training, work assignments, and daily instructions from Unocal supervisors.
- Unocal provided all the necessary equipment, tools, safety gear, and procedural manuals for Wedeck to perform her job.
- Wedeck worked at the Unocal refinery for nearly a year, from August 1992 to August 1993.
- Lab Support had no involvement in assigning Wedeck's work, providing training for her tasks at Unocal, or supplying her with necessary tools and equipment.
- Wedeck alleged she suffered personal injuries from exposure to chemicals while performing her duties at the Unocal laboratory.
Procedural Posture:
- Rowena Wedeck filed a complaint in a California trial court against Unocal Corporation, alleging personal injuries.
- Unocal asserted an affirmative defense, claiming it was Wedeck’s special employer and thus the suit was barred by the workers' compensation exclusive remedy rule.
- Unocal filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court initially denied, finding a triable issue of fact related to a purchase order.
- Unocal then filed a motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment motion.
- Upon reconsideration, the trial court granted Unocal's motion for summary judgment, concluding no triable issue of material fact existed regarding Unocal's status as Wedeck's special employer.
- Wedeck (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company that borrows a temporary employee from a staffing agency become that employee's 'special employer' for purposes of the workers' compensation exclusive remedy rule when it exercises control and direction over the details of the employee's work?
Opinions:
Majority - Kline, P. J.
Yes, a company that borrows a temporary employee becomes a special employer when it controls the employee's work, thereby barring a tort action under the workers' compensation exclusive remedy rule. The court's reasoning is that the existence of a special employment relationship is determined by the reality of the work situation, with the primary factor being the right to control and direct the employee's activities. Here, the undisputed facts show Unocal exercised comprehensive control over Wedeck's work: Unocal trained her, assigned all her tasks, provided the necessary tools and procedures, and supervised her performance. Although Wedeck was a skilled professional, she was expected to exercise her skills as dictated by Unocal's systems. Secondary factors also supported this conclusion, including the duration of her employment (nearly one year), the fact she performed Unocal's work at Unocal's site with Unocal's equipment, and her acquiescence to the work situation. The court held that conflicting contract language in a purchase order was not dispositive because it is 'the reality of the employment relationship, not the parties’ paper agreement, [that] controls the parties’ rights.'
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'special employment' doctrine in the context of temporary labor brokerage. It affirms that the determinative factor is the borrowing employer's right of control over the employee's work, not contractual formalities or how payment is structured. The ruling emphasizes that courts will look beyond the 'paper agreement' to the actual dynamics of the work relationship. This provides significant protection to companies using temporary staff by shielding them from tort liability for workplace injuries and limiting the injured worker's remedy to the workers' compensation system, which typically offers lower payouts than a successful tort claim.
