Case ID: so2d_466/html/1275-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. FERGUSON, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SYSTEMATIC DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, Appellee.
    No. 84-756.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 16, 1985.
    
      Hogg, Allen, Ryce, Norton & Blue and Robert L. Norton and Michael Mattimore, Coral Gables, for appellant.
    Michael W. Strickland, Miami, for appel-lee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order of the director of the Division of Unemployment Compensation upon the binding authority of United States Telephone Co. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, Division of Employment Security, 410 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Cosmo Personnel Agency of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, Division of Employment Security, 407 So.2d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Reversed.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON, J., concur.

FERGUSON, Judge

(concurring).

The issue is whether seven “independent contractors” doing business with appellant are in fact employees for whom appellant is required to contribute to the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund pursuant to chapter 443, Florida Statutes (1983).

Appellant has not shown an iota of difference in the work performed by appellant’s employees and its independent contractors. The only significant distinctions are that no office space, clerical help, or transportation is provided for the contractors, and they are compensated by commission rather than salary.

United States Telephone Co. v. State, Department of Labor and Employment Security, 410 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), does appear to dictate a finding that no employer-employee relationship exists. But having thoroughly considered the policy of the statute, appellant’s cost-savings motives, and the real controls that appellant exercises over its contractors, I am uncomfortable with the result.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., concurs.