Recent court and board decisions

The worker: A part-time employee of a company that grinds steel plates and fixtures and occasionally grinds eight- to nine-foot industrial knives

The case summary: The employer gave the employee permission to come in on his day off and grind a butcher knife that the worker had recently purchased. After the employee began grinding the knife, the employer stated he was leaving for lunch and that a steel delivery might arrive while he was gone. The employer asked the employee if he would unload the delivery if it arrived, and the worker agreed. After the employer left, the employee continued to grind the knife. A piece of metal from the knife broke off, penetrated the worker's safety glasses, and ruptured his eye.

The finding: The Court of Appeals analyzed compensability under the two-part unitary work connection test. Both parts of the test must be satisfied to some degree for the injury to be compensable. The court concluded that the injury arose out of the worker's employment because the employer permitted the worker to use its equipment to perform a personal task on items that the worker had introduced into the workplace. The court agreed, however, that the connection to work was weak because the worker's personal project played a significant role in his injury.

The court next addressed whether the injury occurred "in the course of" the worker's employment. Although the injury occurred on the employer's premises while the worker was using the employer's equipment, the court concluded that the injury did not occur in the course of the worker's employment. The injury-producing activity was not performed for the employer's benefit, it was performed on the worker's day off, it was not an activity for which the worker was paid, and the employee was on a personal mission of his own. The worker's agreement to remain on the employer's premises was subject to the understanding that he was free to leave—without performing any work for the employer—when his personal mission ended. The worker's reason for being and remaining on the employer's premises was personal; he was not waiting for a possible steel delivery.

The court found that because the injury did not occur in the course of the worker's employment, the injury was not compensable.

Decision | Waitress did not violate the employer's work rules when she left the restaurant to inform unruly customers that they were no longer welcome.

The worker: A restaurant waitress

The case summary: The employee was working the night shift when a group of five unruly, dissatisfied customers left the restaurant, swearing at the waitress as they left. The waitress followed them outside the restaurant to tell them that they were no longer welcome at the restaurant. One of the patrons assaulted her just outside the restaurant's door. The employer's work rules provided that employees were not to leave the building to chase customers who leave without paying.

The finding: The Workers' Compensation Board held that the waitress's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. The board rejected the insurer's argument that the claim was not compensable because the waitress had violated the employer's work rules. The employer's rules did not apply because there was no failure to pay (the customers never received service); the rules instructed employees to take necessary action "with these guidelines in mind," and therefore were not mandatory; and there was no history of enforcement of the work rules or evidence that the employee had been reasonably provided notice of such enforcement. The only evidence of enforcement was the waitress's own termination. The worker was awarded compensation.

Decision | Worker who brought BB gun from home to shoot pigeons at work, in violation of employer's no-weapon policy, was still in the course and scope of employment because such pigeon shooting activity was reasonably connected to his general housekeeping activities.

The worker: A feed mill employee whose general housekeeping duties included cleaning pigeon droppings

The case summary: The employee brought a BB gun from home to shoot pigeons in the mill. The employer's safety manual prohibited bringing a weapon to work. The employee was injured when he fell from a third-floor catwalk; the BB gun was found nearby.

The finding: The Workers' Compensation Board held that even if the claimant's injury was preceded by the shooting of pigeons, and even if the BB gun was a weapon prohibited by the employer's written policy, the worker's pigeon shooting activity was reasonably connected to his general housekeeping duties since he was attempting to shoot pigeons to eliminate the mess from the droppings.

Thus, despite his possible violation of the work rule, the claimant established a sufficient work connection between his injury and his employment because he was injured at the jobsite during his regular shift, and he was engaged in either work activities or activities reasonably incidental to his job duties. The board ruled that the worker's injuries from the fall occurred in the course of his employment.