Employer Association is Not Employer of Association Member’s Employees

June 12, 2013 by Adrian Barnes

In a recent opinion, a California appellate court fleshed out the law on when an association of member employers can, itself, be considered an employer of its members’ employees. The case is McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al.

The Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) is a nonprofit organization that serves as a bargaining agent for its membership, which includes various stevedore companies, steamship lines, and terminal operators.  For several years plaintiff McCoy worked for Yusen, a member company of PMA.  As a result of an earlier lawsuit against Yusen and PMA, a settlement was reached which required that McCoy receive “standard nighttime vessel planner training.”  McCoy alleged that she was harassed and shunned throughout her training as a vessel planner, and that as a result of this treatment, and a hostile work environment, she quit her position with Yusen. Having left her position, McCoy filed a grievance against Yusen.  After an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator issued a written opinion finding that no harassment or discrimination had taken place and concluding that the grievance was frivolous.  Subsequently, McCoy filed a lawsuit against Yusen and PMA.  As part of her lawsuit, McCoy brought claims against PMA under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) After trial, the trial court granted judgment in favor of PMA on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to prove that PMA was McCoy’s employer.  On appeal, the court of appeal affirmed this part of the trial court’s judgment.  As the appellate court noted, “[t]he ‘fundamental foundation for liability’ under FEHA is the ‘‘existence of an employment relationship’’ between the parties, even if indirect. ”

McCoy argued on appeal that because PMA negotiated labor contracts and the collective bargaining agreement between ILWU and terminal companies that were members of PMA; PMA signed the vessel planner supplement agreement; PMA paid for the arbitrator who heard McCoy’s grievance; and PMA reimburses terminal operators for the cost of training vessel planners, PMA was her employer as that term is used in FEHA. To the contrary, the appellate court found that, “under the widely accepted control test, PMA had very little if any control over plaintiff or her workplace.  It was Yusen that paid her salary, owned the equipment she worked on, controlled the location where she worked and where the retaliation took place, was responsible for her training, had the right to promote or discharge her and was the only party to supervisor her work.”

The attorneys at Beeson, Tayer & Bodine are committed to assisting employees in employment law related issues. If you believe that your employer has treated you unfairly, or have concerns about harassment or other forms of discrimination, contact one of our employment law attorneys and they will help evaluate your claim.

 

 

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.