* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________

No. 94-30701 Summary Calendar

______________

DEBRA JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

JOHNNY JONES, Plaintiff,

versus

PETCO; WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants,

and

WEATHERFORD U.S., INC., mistakenly referred to as Petco, a subsidiary of/and Weatherford International, Inc.,

DefendantAppellee,

THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, IntervenorAppellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(92 CV 4199)

_________________________________________________________________

( September 19, 1995 )

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge * :Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

1 Intervenor-Appellant The Travelers Insurance Company adopts the argument presented by Jones in her brief on appeal to

this Court.

2 Plaintiff-Appellant Debra Jones ("Jones") appeals the district

c o urt's summary judgment grant in favor of Defendant-Appellee

Weatherford U.S., Inc. ("Weatherford") on the bas is that

Weatherford was immune from tort liability as a statutory employer

pursuant to § 23:1032 of the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act. 1

We affirm.

I.

Jones, who was employed by verbal contract with Weatherford,

cleaned Weatherford's Venice, Louisiana facilit y once every two

weeks. Her duties included laundering, cleaning, sweeping, mopping

and dusting the facility. Weatherford provided Jones with all the

supplies she used at the facility. Between the days she worked at

the facility, her duties were per formed by other Weatherford

employees.

Attached to the outside of the facility was a portable metal

staircase leading from an exit door on the second floor of the

facility to the first floor. Jones used the stairs to carry linens

from the second floor to the first floor laundry room. During the

third week of December 1991, Weatherford removed the staircase and

failed to pad-lock the second fl oor exit door. Jones was not

notified that the staircase was removed.

On December 19, 1991, Jones was performing her normal cleaning2 Travelers' intervenor's complaint was entered on January

19, 1994.

3 488 So.2d 934 (La. 1986).

4 49 So.2d 852 (La. 1950).

3 duties at the facility. After she changed the bed sheets on the

second floor, she started for the laundry room by way of the

outside staircase. As she attempted to exit the facility from the

second floor exit door, Jones fell from the doorway to the ground

and injured herself.

On December 18, 1992, Jones and her husband filed a tort claim

a gainst Weatherford in district court for her injuries. 2

Weatherford moved for summary judgment on the ground that Jones was

a statutory employee under the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act.

The motion was heard and granted in open court on August 31, 1994.

The district court then entered judgment in favor of Weatherford on

October 6, 1994.

II.

We have previously held that the 1989 amendment to § 23:1061

of the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act effect ively overruled

the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Berry v. Hol ston Well

Service, Inc. 3

, and legislat ively reinstated the more expansive

"integral relation" test established in Thibodaux v. Sun O il Co. 4

Kinsey v. Farmland Industries, Inc.

, 39 F.3d 603, 607 (5th Cir.

1994). Under the "integral relation" test, "if a contractor was

engaged in work that was an integral part of the trade, business,

or occupation of the principal, then the principal was considered4

a statutory employer." Id. (citing Thibodaux , 49 So.2d at 854).

In this case, the "work" Jones contracted with Weatherford to

perform was the cleaning or housekeeping of the Venice, Louisiana

facility. Under the integral relation test, the work is determined

to be an integral part of an employer's trade or business if it is

essential or necessary to that business. S alsbury v. Hood

Industries, Inc.

, 982 F.2d 912, 917 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Arnold

v. Shell Oil Co. , 419 F.2d 43, 50 (5th Cir. 1969)). We have

general ly recognized the integral part general maintenance and

cleaning work plays in the operation of a business. See Darville

v. Texaco, Inc.

, 674 F.2d 443, 44 5 (5th Cir.), c ert. denied

, 459

U.S. 969, 103 S.Ct. 298, 74 L.Ed.2d 280 (1982). Even applying the

more restrictive Berry test, Loui siana courts have held that

cleaning serv ices are "unquestionably the type of 'routine,'

'customary,' 'regular,' and 'predictable' work" to fall within the

scope of the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act. S olomon v.

United Parcel Service, Inc. , 539 So.2d 715, 717 (La. App. 3d Cir.

1989, writ denied ). General cleaning and maintenance of a business

facility, by their vary nature, allow for the smooth and continued

operation of the principal's business . At Weatherford's Venice,

Louisiana facility, some of the employees are required to remain at

the facility twenty-four hours a day. Weatherford must provide

these employees with sleeping quarters, as well as maintain the

general cleanliness of the facility for Weatherford's customers.

Thus, we believe that the cleaning performed by Jones constitutes

an integral part of the trade, business, or occupation of5

Weatherford because it is necessary to the operation of the Venice,

Louisiana facility. Therefore, we find that the district court did

not err in con cluding that Weatherford was a statutory employer

entitled to tort immunity under § 23:1032 of the Louisiana Worker's

Compensation Act.

III.

For the reasons articulated above, the judgme nt of the

district court is AFFIRMED.