Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Headline: Court rules employer-paid union trust contributions are not ‘wages,’ reducing death benefits and making it harder for families to count fringe benefits in survivors’ payouts.
Holding: The Court held that employer contributions to union trust funds for health, pensions, and training are not “wages” under §2(13) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act and therefore are excluded from benefit calculations.
- Reduces survivor death benefits by excluding employer trust contributions.
- Keeps wage calculations focused on cash pay, not employer trust funds.
- Leaves any change to Congress or future lawmaking.
Summary
Background
James Hilyer, a construction worker for Morrison-Knudsen, was killed on a District of Columbia Metrorail job. He was covered by the federal Compensation Act as applied in D.C. and by a union contract that required employer payments to trust funds: $0.28 per hour to health and welfare, $0.35 to pension, and $0.05 to a training fund. The employer began paying statutory death benefits equal to two-thirds of Hilyer’s average weekly wage; his widow argued those hourly trust contributions should be counted as part of his wages.
Reasoning
The Court’s central question was whether employer payments into union trust funds are “wages” under §2(13) of the Compensation Act. The majority answered no. It said the statute expressly covers items with a present market cash value (like board or housing), while trust funds and pension credits are not readily convertible to cash, are often speculative, and depend on vesting, continued employment, or need for services. The Court also relied on the Act’s history and consistent agency practice, noting such fringe benefits were rare in 1927 and Congress had not amended the definition despite later opportunities.
Real world impact
Because these contributions are excluded from the statutory definition of wages, survivors cannot base death benefits on them under the Act. Employers and insurers avoid higher automatic payouts tied to trust contributions, and calculating the national average weekly wage remains focused on cash earnings. The Court suggested that if a different rule is desired, Congress should change the statute.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Marshall dissented, arguing the trust payments reflect an employee’s earning power and an employer’s contribution is a reasonable way to value fringe benefits. He would have included such payments when computing wages.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?