Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

1

1 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
2 ELIZABETH, UNION COUNTY DISTRICT.

4 RODERICK POPE, : CLAIM PETITION


NO.: 2002-40978
5 Petitioner, :
DECISION:
6 vs. :

7 SALVATION ARMY, :

8 Respondent.

9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OCTOBER 18, 2007
10
B E F O R E:
11
THE HONORABLE PETER F. WOMACK,
12 JUDGE OF COMPENSATION.

13 A P P E A R A N C E S:

14 THOMAS E. HOOD, ESQS.,


BY: GERALD DELLA SALLA, ESQ.,
15 NO APPEARANCE
Attorneys for the Petitioner
16
CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, ESQS,
17 BY: MELISSA BIABLOS, ESQ.,
NO APPEARANCE.
18 Attorneys for the Respondent.

19

20
THERESA M. GIAIMO,
21 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
WILLIAM C. O'BRIEN ASSOCIATES
22 525 BOULEVARD, P.O. BOX 428
KENILWORTH, NEW JERSEY 07033
23 (908) 276-8664

24

25
2

1 The COURT: In the matter of Roderick Pope

2 versus Salvation Army, Claim Petition 2002-40978, the

3 petitioner was injured on March 29, 2002 while

4 pulling a clothes cart for the Salvation Army. The

5 issue is whether Petitioner is in an employment

6 relationship with the Salvation Army.

7 Petitioner was incarcerated in the Union

8 County Jail Complex for six months, for violating his

9 parole. Four months into his sentence he became

10 aware of a drug program offered by the Salvation

11 Army. Petitioner was aware that if he was accepted in

12 the program he would be in the program for six

13 months. He would receive housing, meals, clothes and

14 $18 a week. He would be receiving counselling on drug

15 problems. This was an interfaith based program so he

16 would be going to religious classes on a regular

17 base. He would work five days a week as well. If he

18 broke any rules in the drug program he would be back

19 in jail for the rest of his sentence. When asked why

20 he signed up for the program, Petitioner replied that

21 he had a drug problem and felt he needed help in

22 handling this problem. Petitioner stated that he

23 could have easily spent the last two months doing his

24 jail time, but he wanted drug rehabilitation.

25 Petitioner also indicated he had been in a different


3

1 type of drug rehabilitation in the past, so that he

2 had some idea what a drug rehabilitation program was

3 like. He specifically indicated that he did not

4 think he was applying for a job, but he was applying

5 to get into a drug rehabilitation program.

6 Mr. Philip Dougherty did appear for the

7 respondent as a witness and stated that he used to

8 work for the Newark Adult Rehabilitation Center, for

9 the Salvation Army. He had participated in the

10 program and afterwards got a job with the program.

11 The program was to help addicts overcome their

12 addiction problems. There is a requirement to go to

13 religious services. There was a work therapy program

14 and there is counselling services. Not only are

15 participants required to go to religious services and

16 work therapy programs, they are also required to go

17 to all counselling services. The applicants to the

18 programs stayed, at all times, in the residence hall.

19 They would be allowed passes to go outside the

20 residence at times, but they are ere required to

21 return. Of course, food and clothing was provided.

22 There was also an $18 a week stipend. Mr. Dougherty

23 indicated this was not given for any work. It was

24 given for length of stay. If a Petitioner or

25 applicant had not been able to work the entire week,


4

1 they would be given the stipend anyway. This stipend

2 was for the applicant to buy some personal things

3 while in the program. Mr. Pope was aware that he

4 would receive the $18 a week and that he would

5 receive food and a room, as well as clothing. He was

6 aware he would not be allowed to leave the place

7 without a pass. He was aware that he was required to

8 go to all counselling sessions and he was aware he

9 was required to show up for therapy. If he did not

10 or was unable to perform the work therapy during the

11 week, he could make it up on Saturday. If he could

12 not make it up on Saturday, then apparently the work

13 would never be made up. Petitioner would still

14 receive his stipend of $18. Petitioner did not

15 really consider the $18 to be a part of a salary.

16 Petitiner admitted that he would never consider

17 working for $18. Petitioner signed a paper

18 indicating he was in drug rehabilitation and not in

19 the employ of the center. Petitioner stated that he

20 did not read these papers when they were signed and

21 no one explained it. He clearly could read and went

22 through High School, but he didn't read the papers.

23 He was clearly aware that this was a rehabilitation

24 program. He entered the program in order to seek

25 help with his drug problems. He wasn't preparing for


5

1 a career. Clearly, this was not a work release

2 program. This was a program for drug and alcohol

3 rehabilitation. Petitioner described the phases of

4 the program. He described phase one in zero to

5 30 days, where he was counseled. He read books and

6 were required to do certain stuff, at the end of

7 which time he would be promoted to the phase two.

8 Where he would get different kinds of counselling

9 sessions, and at that time he would not receive two

10 overnight passes. In phase three, there were

11 different group counselling sessiions and he could

12 obtain three night passes instead. In phase four he

13 could actually go out and perform work. The main

14 emphasis is not on the work. This is on the

15 counselling. The work portion of it was only part of

16 the therapy. It was not necessarily to provide

17 services to receive pay. The paperwork Petitioner

18 signed outlined the program, but Petitioner was aware

19 he was in a rehabilitation program and in no way did

20 he think that he had been applying for the job or he

21 was performing employment for a fixed return. This

22 was not an employment relationship. Petitioner was

23 not there to perform work for the Salvation Army and

24 in return gets certain services and living conditions

25 food and $18. While he was in the rehabilitation


6

1 program and undergoing counselling and the religious

2 training, he certainly would have had a room. Since

3 he was required to stay there, he would be given

4 food. The $18 was a small stipend just to have

5 cigarettes or candy or whatever he would buy for

6 himself. The main purpose of this whole program was

7 counselling and trying to help the petitioner

8 overcome any drug or alcohol problems. It was not to

9 provide a service to the Salvation Army. The work

10 therapy program was part of the therapy situation and

11 not an employment situation.

12 I find that Petitioner has failed to

13 sustain the burden of proof for showing he was an

14 employee of the Salvation Army. Unfortunately, he

15 did undergo a rather severe accident and was injured.

16 Petitioner is looking for some money from

17 this accident. However, this is not employment under

18 the Workers Compensation Act and petitioner is not

19 entitled to Workers Compensation.

20 Respondent will pay to William C. O'Brien

21 a stenographic fee of 450. Respondent will prepare

22 an order of dismissal for failure to sustain the

23 burden of proof of showing an employment relationship

24 for my signature.

25
7

2 I, PETER F. WOMACK, a Judge of

3 Compensation, do hereby state this is a true and

4 accurate transcription of the decision rendered in

5 this matter.

8 ------------------------------------

9 Peter F. Womack,

10 Judge of Compensation

11

12 I, THERESA M. GIAIMO, a Certified New

13 Jersey Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the

14 State of New Jersey, certify that the foregoing is a

15 true and accurate transcript of the proceedings held

16 at the place and on the date hereinbefore set forth.

17

18

19

20

21 _________________________

22 THERESA M. GIAIMO, CSR.

23

24

25

S-ar putea să vă placă și