Board Coverage Decision

2003-02

Employee Status Determination* 

Effective January 28, 2003

No Decision Published
https://www.rrb.gov/blaw/bcd/bcd03-2.htm

Categories of Coverage Decisions

B.C.D. 03-2

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

G.L.B.

Decision on Reconsideration

•Rita.

JAN 08 2003

This is the decision on reconsideration of the status of GLB as an employee under the

Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §§ 231-231v) (RRA) and the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. §§ 351-369) (RUIA).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In B.C.D. No. 02-10, issued on February 11, 2002, the three-member Board of the

Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) held that services performed for Utah Railway 

(URC) by GLB are being performed as an employee under the RRA and RUIA and

that services for Salt Lake City Southern (SLCSR) performed by GLB during the period

April 1, 1993 through October 18, 1999 were performed as an employee under the

RRA and RUIA. Accordingly, such service was found to be creditable under the Acts 

insofar as permitted by RRB regulations.! By letter dated May 10, 2002, GLB

submitted a request for reconsideration of that decision. This request was followed by

a letter dated September 19, 2002, that contained argument in support of GLB's 

contention.

BACKGROUND

As set forth in the initial decision, the facts in this case are as follows:

The Utah Railway is a covered employer under the RRA and RUIA (B.A. No. 2746).

The Utah Railway is the parent of the Salt Lake City Southern Railroad Company, a

covered employer under the Acts from April 1, 1993, until October 18, 1999 (B.A. No.

5730), and a subsidiary of Arava Natural Resources Company, Inc., which in turn is

owned by Mueller Industries, Inc. GLB is the President and Chief Operating Officer of 

the Utah Railway and the Salt Lake City Southern. GLB was not reported as an

employee of either railroad. GLB performs the following services for the Utah Railway:

inspects locomotives for purchase and lease; approves locomotive repair and

maintenance agreements; participates in union management meetings; meets with

customers and suppliers to negotiate shipping contracts and resolve trackage and

switching billing disputes; hires and discharges railroad employees; conducts 

employee salary negotiations, as well as disciplinary and arbitration hearings;

approves professional service contracts; and executes instruments and documents 

including checks, notes, mortgages, deeds, security agreements, and contracts. GLB

is also the president, and, in some cases, a director, of twelve natural resource and

mining companies. Estimates were that GLB spends between 25-50 percent of his

9/24/2016 9:28 AM
https://www.rrb.gov/blaw/bcd/bcd03-2.htm

time providing managerial services to the Utah Railway. Utah Railway pays a monthly

management fee to Arava, which includes GLB's salary.

APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS

Section 1(b) of the RRA (45 U.S.C. § 231(b)) defines the term “employee” to mean any

individual in the service of one or more employers for compensation. Section 1(d)(1) of

the RRA provides that an individual is in the service of an employer if:

(i) (A) he is subject to the continuing authority of the employer to supervise and direct 

the manner of rendition of his service, or (B) he is rendering professional or technical

services and is integrated into the staff of the employer, or (C) he is rendering, on the 

property used in the employer's operations, personal services the rendition of which is

integrated into the employer's operations. (45 U.S.C. § 231 (d)(1 )(i)); and

(ii) he renders such service for compensation***.

Section 1(e) of the RUIA (45 U.S.C. § 351(e)) contains essentially the same definition.

Section 1(k) of the Railroad Retirement Act states as follows:

The term “employee” includes an officer of an employer.

While the regulations of the Board generally merely restate these provisions, it should

be noted that section 203.3(b) thereof (20 CFR 203.3(b)) provides that the foregoing 

criteria apply irrespective of whether "the service is performed on a part-time basis * *

*," and that section 203.2 (20 CFR 203.2) provides in pertinent part that “An individual 

shall be an employee whenever * * * (d) he is an officer of an employer.”

DISCUSSION

In his submission in support of his request for reconsideration, GLB states that he

does not spend 25 - 50 percent of his time on management activities for URC. He

concedes that he does devote some time to management time for URC, but does not

state how much.

GLB's first allegation of error is that he was not an employee of URC since he was

paid no compensation by URC. GLB argues that since the general definition of an

employee contained in section 1(d) (1) cited above is that the employee must render 

the service to the railroad employer for compensation. GLB further argues that since

he never received any compensation directly from either URC or SLCSR he could not

be an employee.

It is uncontroverted that URC paid a management fee to Arava. It is also 

uncontroverted that GLB was an officer of URC and SLCSR and performed services,

as set forth above, for those railroad employers. GLB was also an officer of Arava and

was paid a salary directly by Arava. The Board's regulations provide that

9/24/2016 9:28 AM
https://www.rrb.gov/blaw/bcd/bcd03-2.htm

compensation may be in any form. See 20 CFR 211.2. It is reasonable to conclude 

that the salary GLB received from Arava was in part based on the management fee 

paid by URC to Arava and the services performed by GLB for URC and SLCSR. The 

payment of the compensation for the services GLB rendered to URC and SLCSR was

by a third party, Arava. This does not mean that GLB was not paid compensation by

the railroads.

GLB also argues that URC and SLCSR are unable to determine the amount of

compensation that was paid to GLB since Arava paid that amount. Difficulty in

determining the amount of compensation to be reported does not relieve URC and

SLCSR of the responsibility to report compensation for services rendered to the two

employers by GLB. The amount to be reported should reflect the value of GLB's 

services to the covered employers.

GLB's next argument is that the language in section 1 (k) of the Act that defines the 

term “employee” to include an officer of an employer is not conclusive. He argues that 

an officer must still meet the definition of employee contained in section 1 (d)(1) of the 

Act. Interpretation of a statute is to begin with the statute's language. Mallard v. United

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U S. 296, 300, 109 S. Ct.

1814, 1818, 104 L. Ed 2d 318,326 (1989). If that language is plain, that is also where 

the inquiry into the meaning of the statute must end, for statutes are to be

implemented according to their terms. See United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.,

489 U.S. 235, 241 (1889). There is no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a

statute than the very words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its

wishes. United States v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 310 U.S.534, 543

(1940). The only recognized exception to this rule occurs when a literal reading of a

statute would produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of the statute's 

drafters. Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571, 102 S. Ct. 3245, 73 L.

Ed 2d 973,981 (1982).

In the present case, the plain meaning of section 1(k) of the Act is that officers of a

railroad employer are employees. An officer does not have to also meet the definition 

of employee found in section 1 (d)(1) of the Act. Acceptance of GLB's argument would

make section 1(k) of the Act superfluous. GLB is an officer of covered railroad

employers and, as such, is an employee of those employers.

GLB's final argument is that the decision of the Board undermines “the humanitarian 

intent of Congress”. It is unclear what that humanitarian intent is. GLB meets the 

definition of an employee contained in the Act. The fact that he might not obtain

sufficient service to qualify for an annuity is immaterial.

DECISION

Upon reconsideration, the Board finds that GLB was an employee of URC and SLCSR

within the definitions of employee in sections 1(d)(1)(i)(A), 1 (d)(1)(i)(B) and section

1 (k) of the RRA for the period in question.

9/24/2016 9:28 AM
BCD 03-2 https://www.rrb.gov/blaw/bcd/bcd03-2.htm

Cherryl T. Thomas

V. M. Speakman, 

Jr.

Jerome F. Kever

1 Section 211.16 of the Board's regulations (20 CFR 211.16) provides that the period of time 

within which compensation may be reported is limited to four years after the date on which

such compensation is required to be reported to the Board. The four-year rule is subject to

certain exceptions including when the earnings were erroneously reported to the Social

Security Administration in the good faith belief that the Social Security Act covered the 

employment. No service or tier II compensation may be credited beyond the four-year period 

unless the appropriate railroad retirement taxes have been paid.

To view and download Board Coverage Decision 03-2 in PDF Format you need the free Acrobat Reader. We recommend using the latest version. Get Acrobat

Categories of Coverage Decisions | RRB.Gov Home

Rev. 11/06/2012 07:59:53

4 of 4 9/24/2016 9:28 AM