Opinion ID: 1856916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: facts

Text: Appellant has been in the construction business in the State of South Dakota for nearly three decades, nearly all of which he operated a construction business in the town of Hoven, under the firm name and style of Al Weber Construction Company. During the years of 1973, 1974, and 1975, appellant engaged in numerous construction projects. Appellant maintains that he coordinates construction projects within Potter County and further contends that he has no employees; rather, he urges that he operates his construction business on a fee arrangement and that the electricians, carpenters, painters and plumbers who work on these construction projects are craftsmen and occupy the status of independent contractors. Neither the hearings referee nor the trial court agree with his position. Appellant's fee arrangement, essentially, works in this manner: appellant is contacted by a customer regarding the construction of a certain project desired by the customer; the customer then prepares a plan for the appellant's acceptance or rejection or appellant simply prepares a construction plan for the customer; appellant furnishes the customer with an estimated cost based upon his construction experience; and finally, appellant then charges the customer a fee for overseeing the project and making sure the project is satisfactorily completed by securing adequate materials, craftsmen, and labor. In some of the construction jobs, labor costs and materials are paid for directly by the customer; on other jobs, appellant pays these costs directly. The record reveals certain critical facts determinative of our decision: appellant keeps consolidated time sheets and in some instances the craftsmen are paid consistent with these time sheets; some workmen are paid from appellant's own checking account; appellant, by his own admission, admits to a certain right to control (the workmen's) work but only to the extent that it is not being done correctly, and would therefore adversely affect the finished product; at another point in appellant's testimony, he speaks of hiring an individual(s); some of the workers testified that they believed that appellant could possibly fire them for incorrectly performing their work; although some of the craftsmen used their own small handtools, larger pieces of equipment used on construction jobs were owned and furnished by appellant; if, indeed, the workmen and craftsmen on the jobs were independent contractors as appellant contends, there are no written subcontracts flowing between the owners of the property and appellant nor between the owners and the craftsmen or workmen; appellant gave instructions to men on the construction sites; through subpoena duces tecum, appellant was commanded to produce and did produce cancelled checks depicting not a straight fee arrangement, as he contends, but payment of wages, materials, and reimbursable expenses. Under this set of facts, appellee's hearings examiner held that the remuneration received by certain individuals for services on appellant's construction projects constituted wages within the meaning of the South Dakota Unemployment Compensation Law.