Who’s the Boss? Workers’ Compensation News
Moore: Class Code 5606
The California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) recently issued a decision in the case of Moore v. State of California, Class Code 5606, addressing the issue of who is considered the employer for purposes of workers’ compensation coverage.
Background
The plaintiff, Mark Moore, was a groundskeeper employed by a private company that contracted with the State of California to provide landscaping services. Moore sustained a work-related injury while performing his duties at a state-owned facility.
Dispute
The primary issue in the case was whether Moore’s employer was the private company or the State of California. The state argued that it was not Moore’s employer because the contract with the private company made the company responsible for all aspects of the employees’ employment, including workers’ compensation coverage.
WCAB’s Decision
The WCAB ultimately found that the State of California was Moore’s employer for purposes of workers’ compensation coverage. The WCAB considered several factors in reaching this decision, including: * The state had significant control over the work being performed, including the hours of work, the equipment used, and the safety procedures followed. * The state exercised authority over Moore’s work, including the ability to discipline or terminate his employment. * Moore was performing work that was an integral part of the state’s business operations. The WCAB concluded that the state had sufficient “right to control” Moore’s work to be considered his employer, even though the private company had contracted to provide the services.
Significance
The Moore decision is significant because it clarifies the circumstances under which the state may be considered the employer of workers employed by private contractors. This is particularly important in cases where the work is performed on state-owned property or is an integral part of the state’s operations.
Implications for Employers
The Moore decision reminds employers that they may be responsible for workers’ compensation coverage even if they do not directly employ the injured worker. This is especially true for entities that contract with private companies to perform work that is an integral part of their business operations. Employers should carefully review their contracts with third-party providers and ensure that there is clear language defining the responsibilities of each party with respect to workers’ compensation coverage.Employee Class Code 5606 and Its Impact on Workers’ Compensation PremiumsEmployee Class Code 5606 and Its Impact on Workers’ Compensation Premiums
By James Moore
Tuesday June 11, 2024 | 0
Over the past ten years, employee class code 5606 has generated numerous questions from policyholders.
James Moore
Most questions arise after an employer receives their premium statement or final premium invoice for a specific insurance year. The premium auditor has moved part of the class code 5606 to a class code with a much higher rate.
If a topic appears so often on the employees’ radar, an article should be written about it. Let’s examine this controversial rating code by looking at how the two largest rating agencies (NCCI and WCIRB) define this code for the construction industry.
The main parts of the descriptions are included in each section. Use the links to view the full descriptions. Both descriptions contain copyrighted information.
WCIRB version
This classification applies to executive-level supervisors of construction activities where the employer develops payroll in one or more construction or erection classification(s), provided there are not less than two levels of supervision as defined in Section IV, Rule 2d, Executive Level Supervisors. between the executive-level supervisor and the workers performing actual construction work.
NCCI version
Please note that NCCI class code 5606 is subject to change by each state.++
Code 5606 is intended to cover the project manager, construction manager, construction manager or construction superintendent for both specialist and general contract risks.++The project manager, etc., will spend some time in the office and the rest of the time visiting various job sites, in consultation with the superintendent or foreman to keep track of the progress of the work being performed on each job or project.++The qualifications established for the use of code 5606 are that the project manager, etc., of a construction or assembly company must exercise supervision through supervisors or foremen of the employer and cannot have direct control over the employees on the construction or assembly site.++The project manager may also supervise through subcontractors, supervisors, or foremen, but each subcontractor must have an on-site superintendent or foreman at each construction site.++The key element is determining their job duties and not their title, and also that supervision should be indirect rather than direct.
In short
The descriptions from the two major rating agencies are similar, even if the two descriptions read slightly differently. The best advice I can give starts with looking at your policy’s declaration page to see if class code 5606 covers a portion of your policy’s estimated payroll. Then take the two descriptions above into account. Deciding to do anything after your premium check bill is received other than disputing it may not be the business strategy for your company.
This blog post comes from James Moore, AIC, MBA, ChFC, ARM, and is republished with permission from J&L Risk Management Consultants. Visit the full website at www.cutcompcosts.com.
Workplace Power Dynamics and Workers’ Compensation
Recent events in Class Code 5606 have raised questions about the responsibilities and relationships between employers and employees. The concept of “who’s the boss” has taken center stage as concerns arise over the potential for employer retaliation against workers who report injuries or illnesses. Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, employees are entitled to certain benefits and protections when they are injured or become ill on the job. However, some employers have been accused of retaliating against employees who file workers’ compensation claims, creating a climate of fear and intimidation. In Class Code 5606, workers have expressed concerns that they face retaliation from their supervisors if they report injuries. This has led to allegations of underreporting and delayed reporting of injuries, which can have significant consequences for injured workers and their families. Legal experts emphasize the importance of protecting workers’ rights to report workplace injuries without fear of retaliation. They argue that employers have a legal and ethical obligation to foster a safe and supportive workplace where employees feel comfortable seeking medical attention and reporting hazards. Unions and worker advocacy groups have called for increased enforcement of anti-retaliation laws and stricter penalties for employers who engage in such behavior. They also advocate for education and training programs to raise awareness about workers’ rights and create a culture of workplace respect. The issue of workplace power dynamics and workers’ compensation is a complex one, but it is crucial that employers and employees recognize the importance of maintaining a fair and equitable relationship. By upholding workers’ rights and creating a climate where employees feel safe to report injuries, we can ensure that all workers have access to the benefits and protections they deserve.
