COURT: COURT DENIES BENEFITS TO TRUCKER

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- An Oran, Mo., truck driver who was injured outside of a union hall where he went to testify against his employer isn't entitled to workers' compensation benefits, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a unanimous decision, the seven-member court reversed a ruling by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarding benefits to the driver, Alvin Blades.

The court held that the company, Commercial Transport Inc. of Cape Girardeau, wasn't liable because the injuries occurred away from company property and while Blades wasn't on company time or engaged in an activity of benefit to the company.

"Under the facts of this case, Blade's injury while walking up the steps of the union hall did not arise out of and in the course of his employment as a truck driver," Judge John C. Holstein wrote for the court.

On Jan. 15, 1997, Blades slipped on ice outside of the Teamsters Union Hall in Cape Girardeau where he was to testify against Commercial Transport in an arbitration hearing regarding a dispute over additional compensation to drivers for dropping off and hooking up trailers.

Blades, who suffered a torn rotator cuff in the fall, wasn't a union officer and his presence at the hearing was neither requested nor anticipated by the company.

Ruling overturned

After the administrative panel awarded Blades workers' compensation benefits, Commercial Transport and its insurance provider, Great West Casualty Co., appealed the decision.

The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District sided with Blades. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the matter Sept. 28.

Blades' attorney argued his client was entitled compensation under the mutual benefit doctrine.

The court has previously held that participation by employees in collective-bargaining activities benefits employers by resolving labor disputes.

However, Holstein wrote, the doctrine doesn't apply to every employee action that could bring "a remote, attenuated or speculative benefit to the employer."

Among the situations that don't apply include injuries an employee suffers while traveling to and from the workplace or during unpaid lunch breaks away from company premises.

"Blades was not required to be at the hearing by his employer," Holstein wrote. "He was not paid for appearing. His purpose for the trip was to offer testimony adverse to his employer's interests. The accrual of any benefit to Commercial Transport from Blades' presence on the slippery steps of the union hall was too attenuated and remote to invoke the mutual benefit doctrine."