Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02914/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02914-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ABB
Appellant
Local 2379
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 04-2914

________________

Local 2379, United Automobile

Aerospace and Agricultural

Implement Workers of America,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ABB, Inc.,

Defendant - Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

Western District of Missouri.

________________

Submitted: April 14, 2005

 Filed: June 21, 2005

________________

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

ABB, Inc. (“ABB”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of Local 2379 of the United Automobile, Aerospace and

Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“the Local”). We hold that the

Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law (“MWCL”) does not prohibit an employer

from requiring an injured employee to use paid-leave benefits, rather than unpaid

leave, to attend follow-up medical treatment scheduled during work hours. For the

Appellate Case: 04-2914 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918145
-2-

reasons discussed below, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for

entry of summary judgment in favor of ABB.

I. BACKGROUND

The Local is the exclusive bargaining agent for the hourly production and

maintenance workers employed at ABB’s Jefferson City, Missouri plant.

Accordingly, a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) governs the terms and

conditions of employment for the plant’s hourly workforce. For this appeal, the

pertinent portion of the CBA is Article IX, Section 3, which provides in relevant part:

[ABB] and [the Local] agree that all laws of the State of Missouri shall

govern regarding the administration of industrial injury as required.

[ABB], [the Local], and the employees will be subject to the laws set

forth and any State legislation that is modified, changed, amended and

enacted will be applied as required by laws in effect or as they become

effective.

App. 83-84.

Before entering into the CBA, ABB maintained a practice of paying its

employees their full salary for time away from work to receive follow-up medical

treatment related to a workplace injury. Employees were not required to use paidleave benefits, defined in the CBA as paid vacation or personal business leave, and

would not be charged with an absenteeism occurrence. Believing its practice went

beyond the requirements of Missouri law, ABB unilaterally chose to adopt a policy

requiring injured employees to use paid-leave benefits to cover the time away from

work seeking follow-up medical care. The Local immediately filed grievances on

behalf of a number of employees, protesting the required use of paid-leave benefits

Appellate Case: 04-2914 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918145
1

The Local explained the significance of “unexcused occurrences” as follows:

“Under [ABB’s] attendance policy, disciplinary action, graduating to discharge, is

taken against hourly employees who receive four or more [unexcused] occurrences

within a twelve month period.”

2

It is apparently undisputed that no employee has ever been charged with an

unexcused occurrence for failing to use paid-leave benefits when taking time away

from work to receive follow-up medical care. ABB’s practice has been to deduct

automatically the time from the employee’s paid leave. If an injured employee has

exhausted his paid-leave benefits, ABB’s practice apparently is to grant an excused

absence without pay. Our opinion addresses both the policy embodied in the

Supplemental Agreement and ABB’s actual practice under that agreement.

-3-

and the imposition of unexcused occurrences1 for failure to do so. To resolve the

grievances, ABB and the Local eventually entered into a supplemental agreement to

the CBA, which included an “unexcused occurrences” provision and an “exception”

provision:

[ABB] will no longer charge represented employees with an unexcused

occurrence for absences due to disabilities, whether work-related (workers’

compensation) or nonwork-related (A&S or short term disability). Nor will

any previously recorded occurrences for disabilities be used in any future

attendance-related discipline steps.

...

An exception to this Agreement is that any represented employee who refuses

to use either vacation and/or personal business (PB) days for post injury/illness

doctors’ and therapy visits during work hours will be charged an unexcused

occurrence for the time away from work.

Agreement Between ABB-Jefferson City and UAW Local 2379 (“Supplemental

Agreement”).2

Appellate Case: 04-2914 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918145
3

The Local argued on summary judgment that the allegedly illegal exception

provision should be severed from the Supplemental Agreement. The district court,

concluding that the unexcused-occurrences provision was indelibly intertwined with

the exception provision, denied the Local’s motion for summary judgment insofar as

it sought to sever the illegal provision from the Supplemental Agreement and enforce

the remainder. Instead, the district court declared the entire Supplemental Agreement

illegal and unenforceable.

-4-

Despite the negotiated agreement, the Local filed suit against ABB in Missouri

state court. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the exception provision

is contrary to Missouri law because it impermissibly encumbers an injured

employee’s statutory right to medical treatment. On May 21, 2003, the case was

properly removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of

Missouri. At the time of removal, the parties were of diverse citizenship and the

amount in controversy was greater than $75,000.00. See James Neff Kramper Family

Farm P’ship v. IBP, Inc., 393 F.3d 828, 834 (8th Cir. 2005).

ABB and the Local filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Importantly,

the Local did not argue that employees are entitled to receive wages without using

paid-leave benefits while missing work to attend follow-up medical care. Rather, the

Local’s argument was that the MWCL mandates that those employees should be able

to choose whether to use paid-leave benefits or excused leave without pay for the

follow-up medical visits. The use of excused leave without pay would allow them

flexibility to save their paid-leave benefits for future use. ABB argued rather

pointedly, “If an employer can legally deny salary to an employee [attending followup medical care], it is absurd to claim an employee is illegally denied compensation

by paying that employee for [that time].” 

The district court denied ABB’s motion for summary judgment and granted in

part and denied in part the Local’s motion for summary judgment.3

 The district court

then issued judgment in favor of the Local, declaring on two alternative grounds that

Appellate Case: 04-2914 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918145
4

The Missouri General Assembly recently amended the MWCL by adding

subsection 14 to § 287.140. See S.B. 1, 93rd Gen. Assem., 1st Reg. Sess. (Mo.

2005). The amendment provides, “The employer may allow or require an employee

to use any of the employee’s accumulated paid leave, personal leave, or medical or

sick leave to attend to medical treatment, physical rehabilitation, or medical

evaluations during work time. The intent of this subsection is to specifically

supercede and abrogate any case law that contradicts the express language of this

section.” This amendment becomes effective August 28, 2005.

-5-

the MWCL prohibits ABB’s practice of requiring an employee to use paid-leave

benefits, rather than unpaid leave, when an employee must leave work to obtain

follow-up care for a job-related injury.4

 First, the district court held that ABB’s

policy violates Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.140.1 because it denies an injured employee his

regular compensation. Alternatively, the district court held that ABB’s policy placed

an impermissible qualification on an injured employee’s exercise of the statutory right

to medical care under the MWCL. ABB appeals from the district court’s grant of

partial summary judgment.

II. DISCUSSION

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, applying the

same standard as the district court. Donovan v. Harrah’s Maryland Heights Corp.,

289 F.3d 527, 528-29 (8th Cir. 2002). Both parties agree that the facts are not in

dispute. Therefore, we review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions

concerning the proper interpretation of the MWCL. Gosnell v. Mullenix, 11 F.3d 780,

781 (8th Cir. 1993) (“We review de novo the district court’s determinations of state

law.”).

One of the primary purposes of the MWCL “is to ameliorate, in the interest of

working people and the public welfare, losses sustained from accidental injuries

received by the working person in the course of employment.” City of St. Louis v.

Appellate Case: 04-2914 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918145
-6-

Grimes, 630 S.W.2d 82, 85 (Mo. banc. 1982) (quoting Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins.

Co., 583 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Mo. banc 1979), rev’d on other grounds, 446 U.S. 142

(1980)). To this end, the MWCL provides monetary compensation to an employee

for wages lost as a result of an injury suffered during work. Under the relevant

statutes, “the weekly compensation shall be an amount equal to sixty-six and

two-thirds percent of the injured employee’s average weekly earnings[.]” Mo. Rev.

Stat. § 287.170.1(1); see generally Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 287.170, 287.180, 287.190. The

MWCL also imposes on employers an unqualified and absolute duty to provide

medical care for employees injured during work. Wiley v. Shank & Flattery, Inc., 848

S.W.2d 2, 4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). The operative section of the statute provides: “In

addition to all other compensation, the employee shall receive and the employer shall

provide such medical, surgical, chiropractic, and hospital treatment, including

nursing, custodial, ambulance and medicines, as may reasonably be required after the

injury or disability, to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury.” Mo. Rev. Stat.

§ 287.140.1. 

In granting partial summary judgment to the Local, the district court held that

the phrase “in addition to all other compensation” in § 287.140.1 was ambiguous

because “compensation” was not explicitly defined in the MWCL. Therefore, the

district court resorted to the dictionary definition of compensation. Merriam-Webster

Dictionary, the dictionary used by the district court, defines compensation as “a

recompense or reward for some loss or service.” Local 2379, United Auto.,

Aerospace and Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. ABB, Inc., No. 03-4109-CV, slip

op. at 5 (W.D. Mo. July 29, 2004). Placed in the context of employment, the district

court held that compensation includes, “at a minimum, salary and fringe benefits,

such as sick leave and vacation.” Id. at 6. Consequently, the district court reasoned

that § 287.140.1 prohibits ABB from requiring employees injured on the job to spend

their “compensation,” in the form of paid-leave benefits, in order to receive the

statutorily mandated follow-up medical care.

Appellate Case: 04-2914 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918145
-7-

We disagree with the district court’s reasoning that the term “compensation”

as used in the MWCL is ambiguous. Rather, we believe that § 287.140.1 must be

read in the context of the entire MWCL. See Marie v. Standard Steel Works, 319

S.W.2d 871, 876 (Mo. banc 1959) (“[I]n determining the intent and meaning of [a

term] used in the [MWCL], the words must be considered in their context and

sections of the statutes in pari materia, as well as cognate sections, must be

considered in order to arrive at the true meaning and scope of the words.”). One of

the primary purposes of the MWCL is to provide workers monetary compensation for

wages lost as a result of a workplace injury. In addition to this compensation for lost

wages, § 287.140.1 also imposes an unqualified and absolute duty on the employer

to provide medical care for the injured worker–in other words, to cover the worker’s

medical bills apart from and in addition to the compensation for lost wages. Properly

understood, therefore, the term “compensation” as used in § 287.140.1 refers to the

monetary compensation provided to injured workers as required by the MWCL, not

to the overall compensation an employee generally receives from his employer in the

normal course of the employment relationship. See generally Mo. Rev. Stat. §§

287.170, 287.180, 287.190. 

In this case, the parties concede and the district court recognized that the Local

is not seeking to force ABB to pay wages outside the paid-leave benefit system for

the time spent by injured employees in attending follow-up medical care. The Local

seeks only to give injured employees a choice of taking paid leave or taking excused

unpaid leave if they wish to preserve their paid leave for later use. Regardless of

whether the context is the MWCL or the standard dictionary, we do not think the term

“compensation” includes the right for an employee to take unpaid leave, instead of

available paid-leave benefits, at the employee’s sole discretion. Consequently, we

believe that the district court erred when it broadened the term “compensation” to

include the flexibility to take excused unpaid leave in order to attend follow-up

medical care. We agree with ABB that it would be ironic to hold that ABB is denying

Appellate Case: 04-2914 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918145
-8-

compensation to an injured employee when the actual effect of its policy is to require

the employee to accept compensated, rather than uncompensated, leave.

As a separate basis for summary judgment, the district court held that the

Supplemental Agreement impermissibly shifted to the injured employee the burden

of ABB’s statutory duty to provide medical services. The district court reasoned that

requiring an injured employee to use paid-leave benefits in order to receive

statutorily-mandated medical care would impermissibly alleviate the employer’s

absolute and unqualified duty to provide such care. According to the district court,

this “is contrary to the fundamental purpose of the [MWCL], which ‘is to place upon

industry the losses sustained by employees resulting from injuries arising out of and

in the course of employment.’” Local 2379, slip op. at 7 (quoting Wolfgeher v.

Wagner Cartage Serv., Inc., 646 S.W.2d 781, 783 (Mo. banc 1983)). We disagree.

We do not believe that ABB’s practice under the Supplemental Agreement

shifts to the injured employee any part of the employer’s burden under the MWCL

to provide for medical services. Nothing in the MWCL requires an employer to pay

an injured employee outside the confines of the employer’s established paid-leave

benefits system when the employee leaves work to attend follow-up medical care.

Further, nothing in the MWCL prohibits an employer from requiring an injured

employee to use paid-leave benefits, rather than unpaid leave, in that situation. We

decline to write such a provision into the MWCL when the legislature has not chosen

to do so. Instead, we believe the MWCL’s silence regarding an area of labormanagement relations should not, as a general rule, create ambiguity in the statute.

Indeed, there may be a number of permissible reasons for the Missouri General

Assembly’s disinclination to regulate this area of labor-management relations

statutorily. See Clark v. Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago R.R. Co., 118 S.W. 40, 45-

46 (Mo. 1909) (“It would be idle to speculate upon the ground for such legislative

omission and silence. For aught that we know both omission and silence may have

been grounded on an allowable legislative reason.”). In this case, silence may well

Appellate Case: 04-2914 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918145
-9-

have been intended to advance Missouri public policy favoring negotiated collective

bargaining agreements that fix the conditions of employment between labor and

management. McAmis v. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 273 S.W.2d 789, 793 (Mo. Ct.

App. 1954) (“[A]s a general rule, public policy favors the negotiation of collective

bargaining agreements, or contracts, fixing conditions of employment between labor

and management.”). Recognizing that the Missouri General Assembly had been

silent on this issue, the parties to this litigation originally viewed this controversy as

a matter of contract, and we see no reason here to disturb judicially what has been

agreed upon contractually. See Evans v. Mo. Util. Co., 671 S.W.2d 812, 815 (Mo. Ct.

App. 1984) (viewing as a matter of contract the issue of whether payments under a

collective bargaining agreement should be credited toward compensation required

under the MWCL).

In summary, MWCL § 287.140.1 gives an employee the right to employerprovided medical care in addition to monetary compensation for wages lost as a result

of the work-place injury. The MWCL does not prohibit an employer from requiring

an employee to use paid-leave benefits, rather than unpaid leave, when the employee

leaves work to attend follow-up medical treatment. We conclude that the district

court incorrectly interpreted the MWCL. We therefore see no reason why the

parties’ agreement in the Supplemental Agreement should not be enforced in its

entirety.

III. CONCLUSION

The district court incorrectly held that the Missouri Workers’ Compensation

Law prohibits an employer from requiring an injured employee to use paid-leave

benefits to attend follow-up medical treatment scheduled during work hours.

Therefore, we reverse that part of the district court’s judgment entered in favor of the

Local and remand the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of ABB consistent

with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2914 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918145