 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Willms v. Associated Materials Incorporated11/15/2004
Kyle Willms appeals the grant of summary judgment to defendants based on the exclusive remedy provision of Iowa's workers' compensation law. AFFIRMED.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On December 11, 2001, Kyle Willms sued Associated Materials Inc. d/b/a Alside Window Company Midwest (Alside) and later amended his petition to include Staff Source, Inc. (Staff Source) for personal injuries suffered on April 12, 2001, when his hand was crushed between a bundle of tubing and a boom attached to a forklift operated by Michael Tobin. Alside and Staff Source denied liability and moved for summary judgment, arguing Willms's action was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of Iowa's workers' compensation law because both Willms and Tobin were employees of Alside at the time of injury. See Iowa Code ยง 85.20 (2001).
The summary judgment record indicates that on February 6, 2001, Willms applied for work with Advance Services, an employment agency engaged in the business of providing temporary workers to commercial and industrial customers. Willms had applied at other temporary employment agencies as well in search for factory work. Advance Services eventually placed Willms in contact with Alside, and Alside hired Willms as a temporary worker.
Alside hired Tobin as a temporary worker after he was referred by Staff Source, another employment agency utilized by Alside to find workers. Subsequent to the date of Willms's injury, Tobin became a permanent employee at Alside.
Both Tobin and Willms were temporary workers at Alside when Willms was injured. At the time of Willms's injury, Alside employed approximately 230 workers. Of those 230 workers, around eighty to eighty-five workers were permanent, and the remaining employees were temporary. According to Alside's statement of undisputed facts:
There was no difference in dress of temporary and permanent employees. . . . There was no difference in the shift assignments for temporary and permanent employees. . . . There was no segregation of temporary and permanent employees on the work floor. . . . There was no segregation of temporary and permanent employees off the floor. . . . It was impossible to tell, by observation, which workers were permanent or temporary employees. . . . Temporary and permanent employees were governed by the same attendance policy. . . . Temporary employees were included for special events like picnics, and could receive bonuses as permanent employees.
Alside assigned the number of hours for temporary workers and retained the right to hire and fire them. Moreover, Alside was the sole supervisor at the factory. No representatives of the employment agencies were present at Alside. However, Alside paid the employment agency instead of the workers, and temporary workers did not receive pensions or other benefits from Alside.
On August 12, 2003, the trial court granted both Alside's and Staff Source's motions for summary judgment. The court held "Willms and Tobin were employees of Alside at the time of Willms' injury. Alside and Staff Source, Inc. are entitled to the protections of the Iowa Worker's Compensation Act just as Willms was entitled to the benefits of it." Willms appeals.
Willms asserts the trial court erred in concluding he and Tobin were employees of Alside as a matter of law. He contends summary judgment "was improper because there remain disputed fact issues on Willms['s] employment," and "the question of whether there was an employment relationship is a question of fact, precluding summary judgment."
II. Standard of Review
We review a district court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|