2010 MTWCC 16 - Workers' Compensation Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Independent Contractor: Independent Contractor Exemption.Although the department found two auto mechanics’ lack of independentcontractor exemption certificates to be evidence in support of thedepartment’s conclusion that the mechanics were employees, this Courtgives no weight to the lack of exemption certificates because themechanics had a fixed business location and therefore had no statutoryduty to obtain independent contractor exemption certificates.Independent Contractor: Elements: Right of Control. The Courtconcluded that an alleged employer had no right of control over automechanics who worked out of the same shop as his business where thealleged employer’s undisputed testimony was that he did not exercisecontrol over the mechanics, and the mechanics were free to come and goas they pleased, could accept as much or as little work as they chose,could give free or discounted work to anyone they wanted and broughtand retained their own clientele. Furthermore, when one mechanicceased to work at the shop with no explanation, the alleged employer didnot demand that he return to work, nor did he offer the mechanic’s spaceto anyone until it was clear the mechanic had no intention of returning.Independent Contractor: Elements: Payment. Where auto mechanicswho were allegedly employees were paid by percentage, the Courtconcluded the factor was neutral in its determination of whether themechanics were employees.Independent Contractor: Elements: Furnishing of Equipment.Several auto mechanics worked out of the same shop and each owned anextensive collection of personal hand tools which were freely shared asneeded. The lifts and air compressor were fixtures of the building andowned by the landlord. The alleged employer owned a parts washerpersonally, and his business owned a spray wash cabinet, both of whichwere used by the other mechanics. While the alleged employer’sownership of some equipment suggests in an almost negligible way thathe had an employer-employee relationship with the mechanics, the Courtfound this entitled to only a small amount of weight given the way that themechanics in this shop shared the work space and their tools.Independent Contractor: Elements: Right to Fire. Where the allegedemployer testified that he did not have the right to evict any mechanic fromthe shop space they shared so long as the mechanic paid his share of theoverhead, and no other evidence in the record indicates that he had theFindings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment- 2
ight to fire any mechanic, and where, when a mechanic ceased to work inthe shop without explanation the alleged employer stored the mechanicstools indefinitely and did not demand that he return to work, the Courtconcluded the alleged employer did not have the right to fire the allegedemployees.Independent Contractor: Elements. Where two of the four factors weightoward two alleged employees being independent contractors, one factorweighs slightly in favor of them being employees, and one factor isneutral, the Court concludes that the control factors indicate the allegedemployees were independent contractors.Independent Contractor: Independent Business. The Courtdetermined that an alleged employee who ran a mobile diesel repairbusiness prior to coming to work at the auto repair shop where he wasallegedly an employee, had a large, established clientele which he broughtwith him to the shop, and apparently continued to do diesel repair after heleft the shop, was engaged in an independently established trade,occupation, profession, or business.Independent Contractor: Independent Business. The Courtdetermined that an alleged employee who had previously run an autorepair business in a nearby city, had his own clientele, and personallyowned a substantial set of automotive tools was engaged in anindependently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.1 The trial in this matter was held on February 12, 2010, at the Workers’Compensation Court in Helena, Montana. Petitioner Pete Hallquist was present andrepresented by Kevin Vainio. Patricia Bik represented the Independent ContractorCentral Unit (ICCU).2 Exhibits: Exhibits 1 through 13 were admitted without objection.3 Witnesses and Depositions: The Court admitted the depositions of PeteHallquist, Harvey Caldwell, and Morgan Wyatt with the agreement of the parties. SteveDeBarathy, Pete Hallquist, Scott Moothart, Carol L. Craig, and Edward A. Dawes weresworn and testified at trial.4 Issue Presented: The Court restates the issue as follows: 4a Did the ICCU err when it concluded that Harvey Caldwell, KrisLoomis, Morgan Wyatt, Turone Richter, and John Blackwood wereFindings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment- 3
Page 1: IN THE WORKERS= COMPENSATION COURT
Page 5 and 6: forms are usually used for distribu
Page 7 and 8: 17 Dawes testified that he was skep
Page 9 and 10: sole proprietorship. 30 Hallquist m
Page 11 and 12: Mechanics purchased parts through P
Page 13 and 14: 37 Hallquist stated that all the me
Page 15 and 16: Mechanical,” and then each had th
Page 17 and 18: 50 Wyatt testified by deposition ta
Page 19 and 20: Independent Contractor Exemption Ce
Page 21 and 22: 65 Both Moothart and Dawes found Ri
Page 23 and 24: used among all the mechanics. While

2010 MTWCC 16 - Workers' Compensation Court

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?