By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah E. Derry
In Renton Police Guild, Arbitrator Gary Axon ordered the City of Renton to provide a full six months of on-the-job injury benefits to an injured officer who had returned to work between his initial injury and subsequent surgery. The Arbitrator was tasked with interpreting the word “consecutive” in the parties’ CBA.
The Grievant injured his shoulder while making an arrest. He took four days off from work, and received workers’ compensation benefits and a LEOFF II On-the-job Injury (OJI) Benefit with the help of a workers compensation lawyer during that time period. He returned to work full-duty for a little over 5 months, but his condition worsened, necessitating surgery. He notified the City that he wanted to use the remainder of his 6-month OJI benefit (since he had only previously used 4 days). The City indicated that his 6-month OJI benefit continued to run even after he returned to full duty and was set to expire in a couple weeks. The Grievant then asked the City to convert his previous OJI benefit to sick leave so that he could use the full 6-months of OJI benefits for the surgery. The City refused.
According to experts like a workers comp attorney, the collective bargaining agreement states that “all LEOFF II personnel will receive up to six (6) consecutive calendar months of full pay and benefits for L&I qualified duty-related disabilities.” The CBA also explained the intent of the benefit, which was “to make an injured employee financially ‘whole’ for the duration of the recovery.” Relying on the contractual language, the Employer argued that the Grievant’s six-months of benefits ran consecutively after he used them for his injury, and had run out – even though he only received benefits for the four days of work he missed. The Guild, represented by Cline & Casillas attorney Erica Shelley Nelson, argued that nothing in the language prevented the Grievant from either taking the rest of the six-month OJI benefit left over, or from taking a new six-month period of benefits.
Arbitrator Axon determined that the City’s interpretation of “consecutive” would override the CBA’s requirement that employees are made “whole” through the duration of their recovery. He stated,
“Arbitral authority teaches that an interpretation that would render a provision meaningless should be avoided.”
He rejected the employer’s interpretation in favor of the Guild’s:
“Grievant did not remain on disability after [his return to work], so his OJI benefit ceased. There is no dispute Grievant was not paid six consecutive months of benefits because he no longer qualified for payments…. I must reject the City’s interpretation that the agreed-on language justifies forfeiture of almost five and one-half months of the negotiated OJI benefit.”
This was a very positive outcome for a dedicated officer injured in the line of duty. The word “consecutive” created a bit of an obstacle for the Guild to overcome in this case. Fortunately for the Guild, the City’s interpretation, that the benefit “continued to run” even after the officer returned to full duty, did not make sense in conjunction with the contractual language in the article as a whole.
In addition to the “make whole” language relied upon by the arbitrator, there was also language providing that the benefit ends when an officer is returned to full duty. How could a benefit continue to run if it ends when an officer returns to full duty? The City’s interpretation created an unavoidable inconsistency with this language.
Even though this was a contract interpretation case, it was also a case about an injured officer who was denied benefits for a serious injury suffered on-the-job. That fact was not lost on the arbitrator who weighed the evidence and made a sound and reasonable decision in this case. For those who will encounter cases like this, a workers compensation lawyer should be contacted immediately for proper legal advice.
