Opinion ID: 1179246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bookkeeping. All moneys collected are transmitted to AMFI, which keeps records of all sales and commissions.

Text: J. Employment of others. The salesmen or representatives shall have no authority to employ others. K. Termination of agreement. This agreement may be canceled by either party, and revocation is mandatory when a representative or salesman is in violation of any rules, regulations, or laws applicable to the conduct of AMFI's business. Other than the assistance outlined in the sales agreement, no further aid is rendered to AMFI representatives or salesmen by way of stenographic aid, car expenses, advancements, office space, or other items. There is no regulation as to hours of employment, persons to be contacted, nor quota of sales to be consummated within any given period. Customer accounts developed belong exclusively to the developing representative during the period of his employment with AMFI. The Industrial Accident Board found that Carl C. Moore and the one salesman were employees of AMFI and not independent contractors. There is no controverted issue of fact in the record, thus presenting the question as to whether the exhibits and testimony support the findings of the Industrial Accident Board that Carl C. Moore and the one salesman are employees of AMFI. In determining the relationship between persons under our Employment Security Law, we apply the common law test. I.C. § 72-1316(d) provides: Services performed by an individual only as an employee shall be covered employment, but there shall not be included in said covered employment, nor shall such term employee include, (1) any individual who, under the usual common-law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an independent contractor or (2) any individual (except an officer of a corporation) who is not an employee under such common-law rules. This Court has recently had cases which considered factors in determining employer-employee relationship versus that of an independent contractor. An outstanding case is Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co., 82 Idaho 410, 353 P.2d 657, 660. Therein it was said: `An independent contractor   is one who, in the course of an independent employment, undertakes to perform work subject to the control of the person for whom the work is done only as to the result or product of the work, and not as to the means or methods used.' [Citing authority.] `The right of control by which the nature of the employment is tested is the right to control the work, the details of the work, the manner, method, or mode of doing it, the means by which it is to be accomplished, or, specifically, the details, manner, means, or method of doing the work, as contrasted with the result thereof.' [Citing authorities.]    A fine line of reasoning is not always afforded in the differentiation between the relationship of employer and employee as contrasted with that of a principal and an independent contractor. Factors to be considered in each case vary with the relationship which exists between the parties. Here we are to consider right to control, method of payment, payment of expenses, furnishing of materials and assistance, hours of employment, completion of work, right to assign and direct work, termination of relationship, and responsibility for funds. This Court has considered most of these factors in the cases of Fitzen v. Cream Top Dairy, 73 Idaho 210, 249 P.2d 806; Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co., supra, and National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. Employment Security Agency, 83 Idaho ___, 360 P.2d 994. AMFI's right to control is primarily the exercise of supervision to assure compliance with applicable rules, regulations and statutes of those bodies which regulate and control the sale of securities for the asserted purpose of protecting the public. We stated in the National Trailer Convoy case that requirements of a truck driver to meet Interstate Commerce Commission standards and existence of road patrols point toward compliance with governmental regulations; and these are not indicia of an employer-employee relationship. AMFI is required to terminate the relationship if any of its representatives violates regulatory provisions which govern its business. A representative's license to sell is predicated upon his compliance therewith and it is understood to be axiomatic that loss of license terminates selling privileges. A continuation of the relationship between AMFI and its representatives is independent of a sales production quota. The salesman who is herein affected is part-time. Either of the parties can terminate the relationship under given circumstances; however, it was held in the Duffy Reed case The right of discharge is not a decisive test of the relationship of either the employer-employee relationship or that of principal and independent contractor.    [82 Idaho 410, 353 P.2d 660] Method of payment does not disturb the independent contractor relationship. Here the method of payment for services performed is by agreed percentage of the dollar volume of sales. It is to be compared with piecework, although the payment is made semimonthly. It was said in the Duffy Reed case that lack of control of a worker and his equipment constitutes a strong indication of the relationship of principal and independent contractor. There was no control of the salesman or Moore by AMFI, nor of their equipment. Moore and the salesman furnished at their own expense their transportation and any extra help which they needed. AMFI did not direct the hours of work nor the period of the day such work was carried on. Moore and the salesman had no responsibility for the funds which were paid by the patrons for stock, as these monies were paid over in their entirety to AMFI, which forwarded the money for the stock transfer and at regular intervals paid the established commissions. We conclude that the evidence as a matter of law establishes the relation of principal and independent contractor. The order of the Board is reversed. Costs to appellant. TAYLOR, C. J., and SMITH, KNUDSON, and McFADDEN, JJ., concur.