Co-employment is a common arrangement in which two or more parties share employment responsibilities and liabilities for a particular worker or group of workers. This arrangement has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, especially with the rise of professional employer organizations (PEOs) providing administrative support to businesses, including employee benefits, tax compliance, and workers’ compensation administration.
While co-employment can benefit both parties, there are concerns that some PEOs could exploit this arrangement to deny workers’ compensation benefits to injured workers. In this article, we will discuss the case of Ortega Gonzalez v. Major Transportation Services, Inc. and its implications for co-employment and workers’ compensation.
Ortega Gonzalez was a long-haul truck driver and occasional loader who worked jointly for Major Transportation Services, Inc. and Peoplease LLC. In September 2018, while driving a truck for Major Transportation, Gonzalez suffered a slip-and-fall injury to his lumbar spine in Illinois.
Contractual obligations
Under the contract between Peoplease and Major Transportation, Peoplease was responsible for providing workers’ compensation coverage, issuing checks, and furnishing other services. This means that if Gonzalez was injured while on the job, Peoplease was obligated to provide him with workers’ compensation benefits.
The Injury
Gonzalez’s injury was severe and it impacted his ability to work. As a result, he filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. However, Peoplease denied his claim, arguing that he was not their employee at the time of the injury.
Legal proceedings
The workers’ compensation administrative law judge found that both Peoplease and Major Transportation employed Gonzalez on the date of injury. The judge ordered both parties to proceed to arbitration on the issue of coverage, if necessary. However, the panel of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, stating that Major Transportation’s issuance of a paycheck did not temporarily suspend the employment relationship between Gonzalez and his general employer.
Decision and ruling
The panel ultimately found that both Peoplease and Major Transportation employed Gonzalez before and after his date of injury. The panel agreed with the workers’ compensation judge’s findings in a report, stating that Peoplease benefited from Gonzalez’s co-employment status and from his work on the date of injury.
This ruling has significant implications for co-employment and workers’ compensation. It sends a strong message that PEOs should not be allowed to silently benefit from co-employment and then deny benefits to escape their obligations. Co-employment should be used as a way to share employment responsibilities and protect workers’ rights, not as a tool to deny them the benefits they deserve.
Moving forward, it is essential for businesses to carefully consider the terms of their co-employment agreements to ensure that they comply with workers’ compensation laws and regulations. Employees who are injured on the job should receive the benefits they are entitled to, regardless of their employment arrangement.
In conclusion, the Ortega Gonzalez vs. Major Transportation Services, Inc. case highlights the importance of protecting workers’ rights and ensuring that they receive the benefits they deserve. Co-employment should be used as a tool to share employment responsibilities and liabilities, not to deny workers the benefits they are entitled to. Only by working together can we create a fair and just workplace for all.