the other option might be for us to take the other cases unless he can figure out what's wrong with his i think we can put him on speaker with his phone number put his phone on speaker and compensation insurance without these conditions president to implement there would have been no one the employment relationship here was the final by the and swear by the fed and the felon to create a business plaintiffs in various sons the fund testified that he paid five hundred dollars per furnace but if we take a look at the objective evidence here at the paychecks eighty five percent of those were not in increments of five hundred dollars so we have among plaintiffs crime rate and by the independent witness as well as objective evidence and let me i have to ask a question just to clarify the checks that you're referring to according to i'm looking in the record the claimants pay checks were written to claimants require that they have their own business you're fired that they have their own insurance and in doing so he should have shown that himself from liability let me ask you a question and regarding that when was the when was  business out to sub contractors was there any evidence of that ask you let me ask you this what is your interpretation of the fact that the claimant filled out a policy application for chris compensation insurance for his own company as all systems listed his name elected to withdraw himself from coverage on the air and then saying the application misspells testimony was angry but that that's what the placement did and she explained the consequences to him so what is your interpretation of what happened there but now i can i but it has nothing to do nothing to do with the liability or lack thereof of w k heating debts the matter is between himself and his own corps raise you as to whether he isn't titled the benefits could not exempt him so these are softballs ma'am if he could not exempt himself from coverage under the act visa v his relationship would w k heating if he was fact an employee clinique he could he could exempt himself as the owner or sole proprietor of a corporation that he own under the act which he did but the fact of the matter is if he is an employee of the fact of the exempted himself from contra coverage for his own corporation is totally irrelevant he go to work for another and for another company where the defendant was going to have it just right so there was no evidence that the imp let them play and you're preventing him from working or restricted him from working for anyone else was there smart and driven individual who enjoyed the benefits of a true employment relationship when he was working for  check on him what your position or whether in that and the control factor there's some control here i'm not concerned that obviously the arbitrator who was only under a fifty one to forty nine percent standard there is no question and he was hands on in terms of the results he is the blueprints provided by the general contractors it is still with those and he certainly didn't direct mr alexie in the nature and the who was was not an employee of the u k as counsel admitted to one of your questions earlier today and there is no proof that this coworker or co personnel some saying that the u k as a broker just looks for companies to fulfill a contract the broker has made with the general contractor well there's an informal some contractors to know the words another words he has developed a method to avoid the workers compensation act by saying not of the people who do my work are my employees  employees he hires and there and that's one of the reasons why in general we don't mind the panic object relationships as long as it's an arm's length agreement which in this case despite a argument to the contrary by council no i think there is no evidence that there's absolutely no evidence and it's and i think we know there's no evidence of that w k had the contracts with the general contractors is it correct and then he went out and got use quote unquote independent contractors to do the work right so if he didn't want to give them any work he just didn't an independent contractor to do the job what makes you think that the independent contractor could do the job without  of all the rights to do the work and he picks who does the work and when they do the work then occurs to me that's tantamount to the right to discharge if i don't like what you did you're not getting any more business countries not b k only used independent contractors but the cases tell us that the least important factor in a determination of employer employee relationship is the label that the parties  that's least important factor i mean there's absolutely no question in this case that there is some control you've conceded that and there's also an absolutely no question in this case that the work that was performed in this case was it related to the general business of w k yet to post important factors there's no dispute about well it's a close case and it was at arbitration and i just might all that i can see it justice but d the point that i have to come back to is that there was sufficient evidence for the arbitrator evidence on those two most important factors that support an independent contractor relationship i think the under actually control you may know to be some examples of that what is well  the control the directly took direction from the foreman of the japanese camel project where he was for this so this fellow is definitely who actually helped went to the store with now picked up the then they d were colleagues and more than just awesome in his mind awesome when he their colleagues friends they talked about many different things during all those texts conversations and the phone calls i don't think those the number of those were even who paid for them no question well there's no evidence that the who paid for them because ultimately who paid for them is in and the contract between deputy and the general contractor them on what he is supposed to do so we have directional control we have the defendant instructing plaintiff on and on the very essence of age back installation not only in the beginning of that relationship but on the day of the specifically the how the the fund instruct the plaintiffs on where differences needed to be located on where the events needed to go he instructed him on what the what where that what type of supplies were supposed job site that the feds oversight of respect to our phone calls and text messages and of focusing on those for a moment we have ninety seven dollars texts and messages between the two parties in the thirty day period and the evidence shows that these were only