Applicant was employed by Southern California Gas Company at the time of injury, a finding that became final and not subject to further review.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Established SCGC as general employer and barred relitigation of this issue.
From the decision · page 7a. Applicant was employed by SCGC at the time of injury.
As an initial mater, we note that SCGC's status as applicant's employer at the time of injury
was decided by the WCJ in her July 18, 2017 F&A and affirmed in our March 12, 2018 Opinion
and Decision After Reconsideration. At no point did SCGC seek judicial review of this
determination. As a result, our finding that SCGC employed applicant at the time of injury became
final on April 27, 20182 and is no longer subject to review by the Appeals Board or the courts.
(See State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 258,
268 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 758] ["[t]he failure of an aggrieved party to seek judicial review of a
Applicant was also employed by the union at the time of injury, supported by substantial evidence including his role as a regional officer and union business activities.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported finding of dual employment and joint liability for benefits.
From the decision · page 10Here, we conclude that there is substantial evidence that applicant was providing services
to the union on the date of injury. First, applicant was a regional officer for the union, and at the
The Letter Agreement between SCGC and the union states that SCGC employees absent at the union's request are employees of the union for workers' compensation purposes.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Demonstrated union's right to control applicant and supported special employment relationship.
From the decision · page 13Here, the primary right of control factor must be determined in favor of applicant. We first
note that the Letter Agreement signed by SCGC and the union expressly states that SCGC
employees "who are absent from work at the Union's request" are "employees of the Union for all
employment purposes set forth in the Workers' Compensation and Insurance Chapters of the
California Labor Code." (Jnt. Exh. X1, p. 5.) However, as noted above, the terms of such an
agreement are not determinative, and there must be additional evidence demonstrating the union's
ability to control applicant's activities while engaged in union business. (Kowalski, supra, 23
Cal.3d at p. 176; Caso, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 889.) Here, there is substantial evidence of
such control.
SCGC retained control over applicant during union work, including requiring permission and reporting hours, indicating dual employment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Showed SCGC's continuing control and supported joint and several liability.
From the decision · page 15Here, the evidence shows that SCGC retained the right to exercise certain powers of control
over applicant during the loan-out period to the union so as to create a dual employment
relationship between SCGC and the union. Specifically, the evidence shows that, in order to
perform work for the union, applicant had to obtain permission from his SCGC supervisor or
clearance from H.R.; applicant would need to be "released" by SCGC to participate in union
activities; SCGC required advance written notice of a union request for applicant's participation
in union activities; applicant was required to report his union work hours to SCGC; and, in the
event that a union meeting lasted fewer than 8 hours, applicant was required to return to work for
SCGC for the remainder of those hours. (December Transcript, pp. 6:12-13, 10:15-17; March
Transcript, p. 5:17-19; MOH, May 10, 2017, p.