88 Pueblo County v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 2017 COA 74

Mary Rodriguez, a county employee and local union president, stayed after work on December 11, 2012 for a voluntary union meeting to review a prospective collective bargaining agreement.
The meeting occurred immediately after she clocked out, in a conference room in her workplace; the employer provided meeting space but did not pay for union time.
No management attended; the meeting’s purpose was to review and edit the employer’s bargaining proposal and to facilitate ongoing negotiations.
After the meeting, while exiting to the adjacent workplace parking lot, Rodriguez slipped on ice, injuring her shoulder, wrist, elbow, and shin.
An ALJ denied workers’ compensation benefits, finding the injury was not in the course and scope of employment; the ICAO Panel reversed, finding the union activity was incidental/mutual benefit and compensable; on remand the ALJ awarded medical benefits and the Panel affirmed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under the mutual benefit doctrine the union meeting was of mutual benefit to employer and employee and the injury was compensable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an injury sustained after attending a post-work union meeting arises out of and in the course of employment	Rodriguez: as union president, her attendance at a meeting to review the employer’s bargaining proposal served employer interests (facilitating negotiations), so injury is compensable under mutual benefit doctrine	Employer: union activities are personal and not for employer’s benefit; attendance was voluntary, after-hours, and thus outside course of employment	Held: Yes. Applying the mutual benefit doctrine, the meeting facilitated bargaining and contributed to employer efficiency; injury was compensable

New England Tel. Co. v. Ames, 474 A.2d 571 (N.H. 1984) (endorses mutual-benefit analysis for union-officer activities)
D’Alessio v. State, 509 A.2d 986 (R.I. 1986) (after-hours union meeting in employer conference room to screen grievances held mutual benefit and compensable)
Mikkelsen v. N. L. Indus., 370 A.2d 5 (N.J. 1977) (unilateral union activities conferring only remote benefit to employer are generally noncompensable)
Berry’s Coffee Shop, Inc. v. Palomba, 423 P.2d 2 (Colo. 1967) (an act conferring mutual benefit to employer and employee is usually compensable)
Wild W. Radio, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 905 P.2d 6 (Colo. App. 1995) (defines "course of employment" time/place/activity test)