Opinion ID: 2532289
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Work and Control

Text: We have no difficulty in holding that Leslie and GUBMK have satisfied the prerequisites for a JML as to these two conditions of the special-employment doctrine. There was substantial evidence indicating that the work Leslie was doing at the time of the accident was essentially the work of TVA, and there was no substantial evidence to the contrary. John Simonetto, a representative of GUBMK, testified that GUBMK had no contracts with any other entity but that it employ[s] individuals for TVA work and solely [for] TVA work. (Emphasis added.) He stated that GUBMK's workforce ranged from 3,000 to 5,000 employees at any particular time, depending on the size of the work force needed by TVA at that time. He also testified that TVA provided all the materials and equipment for GUBMK's employees, and that Leslie was hired as staff augmentation for TVA pursuant to the staff-augmentation provisions of the contract. Leslie testified that from the beginning of his relationship with GUBMK, he never worked anywhere but at the plant. It was undisputed that on the night of the accident Leslie was assisting Garner in Garner's employment with TVA. Specifically, Leslie had transported Garner in a truck owned by TVA to the location of a railroad switch. Garner got out of the vehicle to switch the railroad tracks, and Leslie began to drive away. Garner then directed Leslie to return with the truck. However, when Leslie put the truck in reverse and attempted to back up, he ran over Garner. The work Leslie was performing at that time was essentially that of TVA as a matter of law. Similarly, Leslie and GUBMK offered substantial evidence that TVA had the right to control the details of Leslie's work, and there is no substantial evidence to the contrary. In the context of the special-employment doctrine, the inquiry is not whether GUBMK retained some control over [Leslie's] work, but rather [whether TVA ] lacked the right to control his work. Hamberg v. Sandia Corp., 143 N.M. 601, 604, 179 P.3d 1209, 1212 (2008) (emphasis added). This is so, because the general employer and the special employer may ` both exercise[ ] control over the employee and both benefit[ ] to some degree from the employee's work.' Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.03 CMT. d(2) (2006). 143 N.M. at 604, 179 P.3d at 1212 (emphasis added). See also Rhodes v. Alabama Power Co., 599 So.2d 27, 29 (Ala. 1992) (The third element of the `special employer' doctrine recognizes that both the general employer and the special employer may have concurrent rights to control the employee of both employers. The focus is on whether `the special employer has the right to control the details of the work' of the employee, not which of the employers has such a right.). The control element is satisfied where the special employer has `the right to control the time and place of the services, the person for whom rendered, and the degree and amount of services.' Hamberg v. Sandia Corp., 142 N.M. 72, 81, 162 P.3d 909, 918 (Ct.App.2007), aff'd, 143 N.M. 601, 179 P.3d 1209 (2008) (quoting 3 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 67.06 (2006)). According to ¶ GC-15 of the contract,  [a]ll work activities of [GUBMK]furnished support personnel [were to] be performed under the direction, supervision, and control of TVA, and TVA [was to] be responsible for requests and directions issued by employees of TVA to [GUBMK's] ... employees providing support services to TVA [thereunder]. (Emphasis added.) That provision of the contract translated into reality on the job site. Leslie testified that when he would arrive for work, it was TVA's foreman who would tell[] him where to go, what to do, [and] all that stuff. Indeed, he testified that, other than the amount of his wages and benefits, after he became employed directly by TVA in 2004, his job duties, [his] foreman, [his] supervisor, [and] everything was the same  as when he had worked for GUBMK. (Emphasis added.) Additionally, TVA could direct Leslie's dismissal. More specifically, the contract provided that TVA [would] have the right to reject any assigned support personnel considered by TVA, at any time, in its sole discretion, not to be acceptable or qualified to perform the assigned work. ¶ GC-15. In that connection, Simonetto testified: Q. [By counsel for Leslie and GUBMK:] And the question he specifically asked you about [was] reduction in force ... and termination for cause. My question for you is with the understanding that TVA dictated the terms of this [manual], who triggers these events? A. [By Simonetto:] For a staff-augmented employee, reductions in force are triggered by TVA. TVA will notify us that the work assignment or the work is done and that they no longer need the individuals.... And for a termination for cause, TVA would basically tell us what that-why they want the individual terminated and for what reason because [GUBMK] wouldn't have any idea what they would be terminated for. Q. Okay. And, is that because [GUBMK] does not supervise that person's work? A. That's correct. (Emphasis added.) Regardless of whether GUBMK had retained some right of control over Leslie, Hamberg, 143 N.M. at 604, 179 P.3d at 1212, it is clear that TVA had, as a matter of law, sufficient right of supervision and control to satisfy the third condition of the special-employment doctrine. See Rhodes v. Alabama Power Co., 599 So.2d at 29 (affirming a summary judgment for Alabama Power Company as the special employer, based on (1) testimony that Alabama Power supervised the [general employer's] employees and that the employees received all of their work instructions from Alabama Power, and (2) a contract between Alabama Power and the general employer stating that `[a]ll work and activities of the ... personnel of [the general employer] at the Project shall be coordinated and scheduled by [Alabama Power] and shall be performed under the direct supervision and control of [Alabama Power]'). It is immaterial that the manual purported to vest in GUBMK oversight or control of its employees in general matters involving safety and conduct. The manual merely provides some evidence indicating that GUBMK retained some control over its employees. It does not provide evidence of the necessary lack of control by TVA.