instead of mr michael and we also think that there are just good issues the fact that the the court did not consider as to whether who was actually performing the services for appellate and was it the individual mr michael or was it his think the way it squares here with the actor honor is when you when you look beyond just the simple formality of you know it's a corporation that we contracted with the question becomes i think who's actually doing the work so sur competitive advantage in the marketplace because it is not absorbing those costs and that is one of the policy considerations behind the satchel but isn't this really sort of a franchise franchisee franchise or relationship in which they're hiring  companies that will then represent them and their product line and do the work but they're independent in many corporations and i'll annoy i have situations where you have you go to sears in your not hiring sears employees you're not you're high in some independent contractor who has an arrangement with sears workers or uniforms is trained by series is their equipment so forth i mean i'm trying to figure out how far this goes i mean apply well i think the statute does not apply if in the situation where you have the the independent contractor and they're doing the work in their name i'm they're not showing this a question of names but i think it's more more than a question maybe it's it's a question of are we controlling what you're doing on telling you how to do your job are we training you are we supervising you are we overseen how you're doing what you're doing everything that a traditional employer would do with a traditional employee except we now get to put the moniker of you're independent from us so we now get to avoid paying all those extra benefits and all of those extra costs and i'm not sure i know i'm trying to follow the extra benefits and costs because it seems to me that the corporation suit sort of leveled the playing field so you don't have certain contractors who don't have their own employees where others do or others are bearing work costs for having employees you know what the purpose of the act is for the protection of the their taxes taken out of their salaries they are whatever wage is required and they're paid overtime how are these employees within the service for pell and that's why we think the statute applies and then the question is does tele control the performance is it with an ordinary course of business so that's how you read the statute i understand that there's the regulation which says aeration cannot be an individual and we don't take an issue with that because i will take a corporation can be an individual but the quicker i mean the regulation itself says nothing about red or an employee of a corporation has rights were standing under the statute and whether the employee of the corporation or even the sub or even the independent contractor or the corporation could bring a claim against the contractor and i think that is i think  would respectfully take issue with what how the lower court ruled i think the lower court extended the regulation beyond what it says to apply to everyone who works for a corporation and oh you mean is the question here the fact question is who is actually performing the service so so again to go back to the fact that corporations no matter how large or small cannot itself perform the work that who does mr you know what we also have here is is how i had the right to say to our j m you can bring x number of employees per job so they're now getting into the control of how many people can show up you can only bring employees that have interviewed with us and approved us so they're now getting into the control of who's out of work on the job if it were a different situation where our jim contracted with hello and our james says we will inst your windows and pella calls and says we have a job for you for mrs smith we have eight windows go instead of m i j m shows up as r j m brings as many or as few people as they want and they do the work and it's quality work obviously it needs to be and then they are separate company and they are doing the work in their own name but will rethink it it comes within the purview of the act is when they show up in essence as hello and tell it is dictating who can show up in terms of they have to be qualified by us but i did the same then to the individual are they saying that to the contractor is a country rather say no to the sub contractor you can only bring people that we have approved and we have trained them we have interviewed and you can only bring x number of people so i know there's a minus is less of a showing that the individual has been and will continue to be freed from control or direction over the performance of the service or the contractor both under the individual's contract to service in and fai we would also argue that they have to be for as a set set free from control and direction not only of the contract but also in fact we don't think you're they were free from control direction in fact we think in fact they were subject to palace control the evidence does show that peleg did did supervise work did inspect the walk home and certainly pelle had the right to come and inspect all the jobs and they made quality comments and they had them you know this wasn't done the way we want it we need to change it that that takes it into i think more of the the controlling what is done if it is the what i would say the more traditional contractor sub contractor contractor relationship where for j m simply goes and does its job as a  sub contractor installs the windows but there's a difference between telling the individual and telling our g m well you know this job needs to be done better you didn't do the job here there's a different individuals who work for  right and i think our argument there is that what we think the facts show are certainly is a question of fact that pella representative showed up and not only told michael but told michael employee's arm you need to do it this way or you need to do it that way and we've trained you to do it the way we want you to and i think that's what takes it beyond just me or i've contracted with you when you're doing a job for me and i'm hands off and i let you do what you want it is it is more of the control that is a  and the direct control over what is going on that we think brings it within the purview of  corporation you know no one organ that was made that helen has a right to rely on corporations in the limited document discovery that we receive there were certain individuals that were hired by poa as window installers so i don't think it's quite crystal clear that power exclusively dealt with corporations i'm one of the thing i would note on most of them though the statute says isn't the usual course of services performed by the contractors so the fact that they have a few and to what is your relationship with the employee because i think the our view is that the intent behind the statute was to look beyond the formality of the contract with a label and i think i'm going to look at the twelve factor test the legislature set up for me you look at individuals and partnerships there are a number of factors there that they're really looking at as far as really who is really doing the work here who's controlling the manner in the means i'm in who's name are you doing the work  is the contractor holding these people out as their employee or just as an independent contractor does the sub contractor have to wait to get paid before it paid to some please which is what we had here mr michael testified i would have to wait to get my money from pella before i could pay my employees so we think in essence that and why do you think this falls within the purview of the act is because we think what tellers basically done is is it outsourced its labor force and says and we don't dispute it is that equipment ration cannot be an individual but again i don't think it really addresses the question of who is actually performing the service and if the individuals of the corporation really acting as the labor force for that otherwise would have its own employees have to perform right but so are g m but selected who would be working on a project that wasn't something dictated by palin but to the extent that they would pick michael who made the decisions who really nessun sacked or that the foreman of the crip i mean that's really what he did he acted as the foreman and decided a better job today i need five of you i'll take you five you know how over he made his decision and it would be the same thing said james at the work schedules for the employees and that wasn't something i would now only to the extent that kelo told r j on that there were jobs that were had to be performed and how many people had to go to a particular job or limit how many people then please court counsel the purpose of the employee classification act is to prevent companies from misclassifying individuals as independent contractors when really they should be employees of that company here classification it simply does not apply to this case plaintiff's argument is about direction control he seeks to apply the elements of the underlying statute but we don't get there pursuant to the department of labor's regulations if the ets the performing services is a bona fide corporation as all parties in this case agree robert j michael holmes was then the statute doesn't apply we don't get two issues of direction troll the outside that is applying statute and that's not what we do here and it's important to know what the illinois department of labor did in setting up the bona fide corporation regulation it set up regulations that distinguish between real corporations functioning is real corporations in the real world in shame corporations shame corporations that may be designed to circumvent the purposes of the act in class individuals as independent contractors but there's no avoids all the attendant labor costs that would it would otherwise have had a it had its own employees your honor it is this more of an economic argument but when we look at the statute we can we look at the purposes the statute the statute does address and the debates on the house legislature talked about unfair competitive advantage now what the legislature was concerned about was let's have two companies one that hires four individuals another company hires four individuals the company a ten ninety nine and all four of those individuals pays withholds no taxes pays no overtime and cetera and this other company company b has four employees it has insurance for these employees pays them overtime obviously companies piece costs are higher than company days that's what the statute was concerned about now that example does not apply at all to this case because the relationship between these two entities between peleg products in robert j michael holmes inc included employee costs you know it's not a matter of whether this was a good deal or a bad deal for robert j michael holmes thank you for purposes the statute what we're concerned with is that the transaction includes employees and not independent contractors and what we don't have in this case we're just plaintiff is claiming misclassification of been contractors is an independent contractor oh we have i employees of a bonafide corporation so certainly our position is that the statute doesn't apply just based on plain language of the regulations and the language of the statute itself for example judge hyman mentioned some contract contractor is not liable for any misclassification by subcontractors the statute contemplates levels of the who a ship contemplates a general contractor and a subcontractor and an employee or an look at the elements of the bonafide corporation regulation we know that that corporation is capitalized it has insurance you can pay its debts pays taxes it withholds taxes complete tax returns  the purposes of the statute now plaintiff wouldn't have been any claim under the statute anyway because he was an employee but if we take the situation let's say our j m classify plaintiff as an independent contractor under the statute he's only really mr michael he was a sole proprietor it certainly would drive if if he was a sole proprietor then the plain language of the statute does discuss sole proprietors being quote individuals expressly excluded from the definition of of people who are covered by the act but all we have here is a contract between pella products and robert j michael did is they had an approximate slotting for each job so that if it was a big job it went to a bigger corporation hell it doesn't care how many employees are g m cents so the judge said pay them a flat fee that was for r j but with respect your honor to go to the half that robert michael was wearing or the have students employees were wearing either those t shirts those are the elements of the statute that's directional control and we just never get there because this was because this was a bona fide corporation so it east again just trying to jump over and get into the statute when the regulations in the plain language of the station provide it that he never actually gets there so so once it's determined that it's a bona fide corporation and the story character that's what it absolutely is why the court below mr michael happens to be the person you know we must allow him to file suit under this statute in any no the corporation that employed him and in northern fact it was a bona fide corporation but this renders the regulation completely means this every corporation is a judge mason pointed out does business through people microsoft does business through bill gates and other microsoft employees robert j michael holmes inc that business robert michael and the other boys of  members of the court robert j michael holmes was a bona fide corporation and ever since the function is a real corporation it held itself out hello in the world as a real corporation it had fourteen employees there are no independent contractors here it withheld taxes cover them with insurance this is exactly what the regulation was designed to do as your honor pointed out it doesn't matter whether we're dealing with robert j michael holme construction when we have a bonafide corporation the statute doesn't apply and similarly the statute doesn't apply here because there has to be an independent contractor and there was a point here the purpose of the statute is about independent contractors not receiving benefits the state of illinois not receiving taxes companies hiring only independent contractors and not accounting for employee costs because they only have independent contractors corporation the statute doesn't contemplate that he can jump levels and get to the general attractor it's that the statute specifically acknowledges that there will be levels of relationship between corporations and bonafide corporations that are only at issue in this case you know the plaintiff to have it both ways you can't shed corporate status like a snake sheds skin or jamie did business as a corporation and that's part there's obviously tax advantages a myriad of other reasons that you need to do business as a corporation but he can't bypass it for purposes of this case that's the purpose of the bonafide corporation if you're a corporation your corporation that's what the bonafide corporation regulation never mentioned there are no independent contractors here all we're doing is dealing with them it was a contract between hela and robert j michael holmes and to perform services to bona fide corporations the bona fide corporation to be the employee of pella but for being in the corporate form and i think that's one of our the contention is that that is was actually what the statute is designed to work beyond just what is the form it is what  it's when the farmer is a fiction you know when it's when it's really a fictitious corporation that the act is designed to address this situation where the contractor  talking about whether they are independent contractors and they probably classified as independent contractors and we have no independent contractors here and i think what's very interesting is if you look at section ten of the statute it actually never uses the two words independent contractor it only uses the word individual and the question is that any individual and employee of the contractor and i think if the legislature were really concerned with are you an employee or not you could have easily written a statute to say instead of saying an individual performing services it could have easily said an independent contractor performing services but it chose the word individual and i think me that shows why the intent of the legislature was behind the act which was to apply to individuals regardless of whom they are looking for not just where somebody is classified them as an employee so