MEANINGFUL WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM: THE "BUNKHOUSE RULE"
By Louis Vigorita
I recently attended the Ventura County Housing Summit as a representative member of the board of the Advocates for Civil Justice (AFCJ), a non-profit organization involved with local affordable housing issues. The Summit was attended by some 300 people representing a wide array of parties interested in issues concerning farm worker housing. The mostly congenial atmosphere was peppered with questions and suggestions about how these divergent groups could and should work together to integrate farm workers into communities where they are sorely needed to pick our food. At present, there is not enough housing for these important members of the agricultural community.
During the din of give and take, I heard one grower mention that the "Bunkhouse Rule" was an example of something that could and should be addressed to make it easier for growers to provide housing for their workers. My impression was that this grower was genuinely concerned for her workers and that perhaps this rule should be changed to encourage more housing. But this creates a dilemma: do we amend the workers' compensation system to take away the benefits accorded the farm worker who is presently covered in the "bunkhouse" in order to create more housing for other farm workers?
So what is this "Bunkhouse Rule"? The general rule is that if an employee is required to live or board on the premises of an employer, either by terms of the contract of employment or by the necessity of the work, an injury received while making reasonable use of the premises may be compensable, though the employee is not at work at the time of the injury. As one court has put it, A "bunkhouse rule" is merely an extension of the general rule that where an employee is injured in his employer's premises as contemplated by his contract of employment, he is entitled to compensation for injuries received during the reasonable and anticipated use of the premises (Rodgers v. Kemper Constr. Co. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 608, 620, citing Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Workmen=s Comp. App. Bd. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 669, 677-678).
While the "Bunkhouse Rule" is not one of those sexy issues in the workers' compensation debate, how many of those issues are relevant to real reform anyway? Changing or modifying the rule could provide some real relief to the housing shortage faced by farm workers today. Although a change may whittle away some minor benefits for workers, I believe that this is one compromise that workers should embrace.
Louis J. Vigorita is a State Bar certified specialist in Workers' Compensation Law. He practices in Ventura.
