By Elizabeth Alberico
In Skzubel v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Com’n 927 N.E.2d 1247 Ill.App. 1 Dist.,2010. Four M, newspaper distributor for the Chicago Sun-Times, claimed to use independent contractors to deliver newspapers, prepare and distribute bills and collect payments from subscribers. Four M would enter into a contract with the delivery drivers that specifically stated that the driver was not an employee. Four M provided the drivers with a specific route, which could be amended at anytime, without notice by the company. The driver used his own vehicle. The rate per paper, per driver was set in the contract, but could be changed at anytime without notice by Four M. Drivers had to give seven days notice to cancel the agreement, but Four M could terminate the agreement with the drivers at anytime. Each morning before deliveries were made, Four M would provide the drivers with special instructions.
Petitioner was hired by verbal agreement as a driver for Four M. Because of Petitioner’s pending immigration status, her husband signed the contract with Four M and the paychecks were issued in his name. Petitioner worked exclusively for Four M for two years and never held herself out as an independent contractor.
The arbitrator found that no employee-employer relationship existed, but never addressed the issue of whether Petitioner was an independent contractor. He reasoned that because Petitioner’s husband, not Petitioner, signed the contract for employment and his name appeared on the checks, there was no contractual relationship between the employer and Petitioner.
A majority of the Commission agreed with the arbitrator, with one commissioner dissenting. The dissenting commissioner noted that the employer waived the right to claim that Petitioner was an independent contractor because of their dishonest actions in avoiding her immigration status. He examined all factors and focused on the degree of control the employer exercised over Petitioner as well as whether the job performed by Petitioner was essential to the business of the employer. The commissioner found that these components were enough to support an employee-employer relationship. The trial court affirmed the decision of the Commission.
The issue before the court was whether Petitioner was an employee or independent contractor. The Appellate Court examined a multitude of factors to determine whether an employee-employer relationship existed.
The Appellate Court began by examining the employer’s right to controlthe Petitioner. This well settled principle has time and again been considered the most important factor in determining whether an employee is an independent contractor. Four M had the right to terminate Petitioner without notice, change the rate per paper without notice, provided each driver with special instructions every morning, and could amend a route without notice to the driver.
Another important factor the court examined was the nature of the work in relation to the business of the employer. The court found that the more essential the job duties are to the success and operations of the business, the more likely it is that an employee-employer relationship exists. In this case, the business of Four M was delivering newspapers. Four M relied on their drivers to carryout the operations of the business. Therefore, Petitioner’s job performance was essential to the success of Four M.
The court considered the label of employee versus independent contractor, in an employment agreement, to hold very little weight in the analysis of whether an employee-employer relationship exists.
The court found that the conclusion of the trial court was against the manifest weight, as an examination of the facts clearly led to the conclusion that Petitioner was an employee. The court agreed with the dissenting commissioner and found that the Petitioner was an employee of Four M.
The court placed the most emphasis on the amount of control the employer had over the Petitioner as well as the work Petitioner performed in relation to the type of business the employer engaged in.
Practice Tip
When an employer controls the actions of an employee and the work performed by the employee is crucial to the operation of the employer’s business, an employee-employer relationship exists.
Post Provided by Bryce Downey & Lenkov LLC. Bryce Downey & Lenkov is a firm of experienced business counselors and accomplished trial lawyers who deliver service, success and satisfaction. They exceed clients’ expectations while providing the highest caliber of service in a wide range of practice areas. With offices in Chicago, Oak Brook, Merrillville, IN, Memphis and Atlanta and attorneys licensed in multiple states, Bryce Downey & Lenkovis able to serve its clients’ needs with a regional concentration while maintaining a national practice.
