HUGHES GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. a Utah Corporation, Petitioner, v. UTAH LABOR COMMISSION, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Respondent.
No. 20120426.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Jan. 31, 2014.
2014 UT 3 | 322 P.3d 712
¶ 29 The Church, through its Help Line, provides a service intended to assist its ecclesiastical leaders in counseling abuse victims. It is certainly not the only organization with internal policies, procedures, training, and resources designed to reduce the risk of abuse and assist victims. To hold that the creation of such policies and programs gives rise to a duty under tort law would discourage organizations from creating these beneficial programs.
¶ 30 Moreover, we must be even more sensitive when assessing a religious organization‘s internal policies. “The delicate balance between the freedom to exercise religion and the demands placed on all persons (clerical and others) by civil law requires us to proceed cautiously in a controversy where we are asked to hold that a religious institution‘s reliance on its own written policy ... gives rise to liability under civil law.” Petrell v. Shaw, 453 Mass. 377, 902 N.E.2d 401, 409-10 (2009). Because imposing a duty on the Church in this case would be contrary to public policy, we decline to do so.
CONCLUSION
¶ 31 We affirm the district court‘s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Church Defendants. The Church‘s creation of the Help Line did not give rise to a duty to MacGregor because, regardless of whether the Church undertook to render a service to MacGregor by virtue of the Help Line, the existence of the Help Line did not increase her risk of harm. The risk MacGregor faced was the same as that she would have faced had the Church never created the Help Line. And the imposition of a duty based solely on the creation of the Help Line would be contrary to public policy because it would discourage organizations from providing such services.
Justice PARRISH authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice DURRANT, Associate Chief Justice NEHRING, Justice DURHAM, and Justice LEE joined.
Sean D. Reyes, Att‘y Gen., Brent A. Burnett, Ronald V. Ludlow, Asst. Att‘ys Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent.
Justice LEE, opinion of the Court:
¶ 1 In this case we are asked to determine the viability of the so-called multi-employer worksite doctrine under the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Act (UOSHA). The doctrine makes a general contractor responsible for the occupational safety of all workers on a worksite—even those who are not the contractor‘s employees. Federal OSHA regulations adopt this doctrine, and federal courts have upheld it as consistent with the governing federal statute. But for us this is a matter of first impression.
¶ 2 We reject the multi-employer worksite doctrine as incompatible with the governing Utah statute,
I
¶ 3 This case arises out of a construction project at Parowan High School overseen by Hughes General Contractors. The project involved over 100 subcontractors, including B.A. Robinson, which performed masonry work. During the course of this project, Hughes was cited by the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division for a range of workplace safety violations. The violation at issue here concerned improper use and erection of scaffolding in connection with masonry work performed by B.A. Robinson.
¶ 4 UOSH cited and fined both Hughes and B.A. Robinson for this violation. As to Hughes, the citation was based on its failure to inspect and take corrective action, as required by
¶ 5 Hughes contested the citation, challenging the legal viability of the multi-employer worksite doctrine and the factual basis for the alleged violation. The citation was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge, whose decision was affirmed on appeal to the Labor Commission‘s Appeals Board. Both the ALJ and the Appeals Board upheld the multi-employer worksite doctrine. The Appeals Board based its decision on the notion that the governing Utah statute,
¶ 6 Hughes sought review in the Utah Court of Appeals pursuant to
II
¶ 7 The multi-employer worksite doctrine has been repeatedly challenged and upheld under federal law. See infra 20. But we have never had occasion to consider it as a matter of Utah law, and the state law issue is distinct.
¶ 8 The governing Utah statute,
¶ 9 We thus address the legality of the multi-employer worksite doctrine on a clean slate under Utah law. And we hold that the governing state OSHA provision forecloses it. In so ruling, we distinguish the federal cases relied on by the ALJ, the Appeals Board, and the Labor Commission, and we also dismiss the policy basis advanced in support of the doctrine. And we reverse the citation and penalty against Hughes, as it was based on a legal ground that we now repudiate.
A
¶ 10 The governing UOSHA provision imposes responsibilities for occupational safety on an “employer.” It requires that “[e]ach employer ... furnish each of the employer‘s employees employment and a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or physical harm to the employer‘s employees and comply with the standards promulgated under this chapter.”
¶ 11 The question presented concerns the scope of these responsibilities. The Utah Labor Commission interpreted this provision to extend broadly to anyone with supervisory control over a particular worksite. Hughes contests this “multi-employer” approach, insisting that the safety responsibilities prescribed by this provision extend only to a single employer as concerning its own employees.
¶ 12 We read the statute as Hughes does. First, the text and structure of this provision are singularly focused on the employment relationship. Thus, the sole subject of the single sentence comprising this provision—the term identifying the persons to whom the prescribed occupational safety responsibilities run—is “[e]ach employer.”
¶ 13 “Employer,” moreover, is defined in terms that contemplate a traditional employment relationship—and that accordingly forecloses the multi-employer worksite principle applied below. By statute, an “employer” is “a person ... having one or more workers or operatives regularly employed in the same business, or in or about the same establishment, under any contract of hire.”
¶ 14 The circular terminology of the statutory definitions drives home a key to its meaning. By defining “employer” as one who engages an employee, and “employee” as one who works for an employer, the legislature conveyed its acceptance of a term of art with a widely shared meaning. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323, 112 S,Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992) (appealing to the common-law meaning of the term “employee” when faced with
¶ 15 The legal term-of-art understanding of the employment relationship focuses on the employer‘s “right to control the employee.” Glover ex rel. Dyson v. Boy Scouts of Am., 923 P.2d 1383, 1386 (Utah 1996). Thus, the relevant control is not over the premises of a worksite, but regarding the terms and conditions of employment. In identifying factors of relevance to the inquiry into the right to control, our cases have looked to the existence of “covenants or agreements ... concerning the right of direction and control over the employee,” the “right to hire and fire,” the “method of payment (i.e., wages versus payment for a completed job or project),” and “the furnishing of equipment.” Id. at 1385-86.
¶ 16 This concept of employment forecloses the “multi-employer” construct that was the basis for the UOSHA citation against Hughes. Hughes had no employment relationship in connection with the safety violation involving B.A. Robinson‘s masonry work. The scaffolding problems in question involved workers engaged under the control of B.A. Robinson, not Hughes. As the sole employer involved in the masonry work and the scaffolding it required, only B.A. Robinson had the statutory responsibility to provide a workplace free of recognized hazards and to comply with standards promulgated under UOSHA.
¶ 17 Hughes was not an “employer” in connection with the work done by B.A. Robinson‘s workers. It had none of the rights of control identified in our cases—as to hiring and firing, method of payment, etc. Instead it had only general supervisory authority over the worksite. That did not render it an employer subject to sanctions for failure to comply with UOSHA.
¶ 18 The “multi-employer” construct is a misnomer—an attempt to shoehorn the notion of a general contractor‘s authority over a worksite into the employment-focused standard of the statute. Typically a general contractor is not an employer vis-a-vis the workers of its subcontractors. And typically there is only one employer as to any one group of workers. Where that is true (as it is here), it is only the employer that is subject to sanctions under
¶ 19 We reverse the citation against Hughes on that basis. We reject the multi-employer worksite doctrine as a matter of Utah law, and reverse the UOSHA sanction against Hughes, as it was rooted in that construct and not on Hughes‘s status as an employer.
B
¶ 20 Federal courts have generally upheld the multi-employer worksite doctrine as a matter of federal law. Under the governing federal statute,
¶ 21 The ALJ and the Appeals Board found this federal authority persuasive. We do not. It is distinguishable on two principal grounds.
¶ 22 First, the terms of the federal statute are distinct. The main difference between the two provisions is structural, in that the federal statutory duty to “comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act” is set forth in a separately sub-sectioned provision. See
¶ 23 This structural difference is at least arguably significant. Under federal law, it is more plausible to conclude that the duty to comply with OSHA standards runs to non-employees.2 We find that construction untenable under our statute for reasons noted above, which are reaffirmed by the unitary structure of the Utah provision—emphasizing that both the duty regarding recognized hazards and the duty to comply with promulgated standards are part and parcel of the employment relationship. But we also note that the federal statute is at least plausibly subject to a contrary construction.
¶ 24 Second, the federal cases cited by the ALJ and Appeals Board and advanced by the Labor Commission here are distinguishable on another ground: The federal caselaw is based on a principle of administrative deference under Chevron, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778. Under Chevron, the existence of ambiguity in a statute subject to implementation by a federal agency requires judicial deference to the agency‘s resolution of the ambiguity. See Fed. Nat‘l Mortg. Ass‘n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45, ¶ 19, 311 P.3d 1004. Thus, if a federal statute is ambiguous on a question resolved by an implementing agency, “the question for the court is whether the agency‘s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. (internal quotations marks omitted). This is the basis of the federal caselaw upholding the multi-employer worksite doctrine as a matter of federal law. By and large, the federal courts have not rendered an independent assessment of the meaning of
¶ 25 This approach is not a viable one under Utah law. On pure questions of law, we have not adopted a Chevron-like standard of administrative deference. Murray v. Utah Labor Comm‘n, 2013 UT 38, ¶ 22, 308 P.3d 461.4 In fact our caselaw has openly repudiated that approach.5 Understandably. A key justification for Chevron deference to federal agencies is national uniformity—the avoidance of a patchwork of federal standards among the numerous fed-
¶ 26 The question for us is thus different from the one resolved by the cited federal cases. And we resolve that question differently, finding in our statute no room for the multi-employer worksite doctrine advanced by the Labor Commission.
C
¶ 27 The question before us is a matter of statutory interpretation. And our role in that endeavor is to determine the meaning of the statutory language. Having done so, we are in no position to pick sides in the policy debate engaged in by the parties in their briefs before us.
¶ 28 It may well be, as the Labor Commission advocates, that a broad multi-employer duty to assure compliance with the standards of UOSHA would enhance workplace safety in Utah. And it is also true that a principal purpose of our OSHA statute is to enhance the safety of the Utah workplace. But we cannot from that infer a legislative intent to extend the statutory duties in
tractors. As we have repeatedly noted, legislation is rarely a result of an attempt to advance a single cause at all costs, and is almost always a balance of competing objectives.8 That is certainly the case with UOSHA. Workplace safety is at its core, but the statute also obviously balances concerns for fairness to employers.
¶ 29 In any event, the interpretive function for us is not to divine and implement the statutory purpose, broadly defined. It is to construe its language. Where, as here, that language dictates an answer to the question presented, we are not at liberty to adopt a different one because we think it might better advance the legislature‘s purpose as we understand it.9
D
¶ 30 We therefore repudiate the multi-employer worksite doctrine as incompatible with
Justice LEE authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice DURRANT, Associate Chief Justice NEHRING, Justice DURHAM, and Justice PARRISH joined.