Opinion ID: 1236422
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Vendx concedes that it was a covered employer, required to make contributions to the employment security fund for certain of its employees. It argues, however, that services performed by its sales representatives during the audit period were not covered employment for the purpose of computing its required contribution. The Employment Security Law is remedial social legislation rather than revenue producing legislation. Covered Employment is an expansive term, and statutory exemptions from covered employment are to be narrowly construed. John L. King, P.A., v. Dept. of Employment, 110 Idaho 312, 715 P.2d 982 (1986). It is defined as an individual's entire service, including service in interstate commerce, performed by him for wages or under any contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied. I.C. § 72-1316(a). Wages means all remuneration for personal services from whatever source, including commissions ... I.C. § 72-1328(a). [1] Services performed by an individual for remuneration come within the definition of covered employment: (1) Unless it is shown: (A) That the worker has been and will continue to be free from control or direction in the performance of his work, both under his contract of service and in fact, and (B) That the worker is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business; I.C. § 72-1316(d)(1). In determining whether a worker is free from control or direction in the performance of his work, the test is not whether the putative employer has control over the end result of the services but whether control ... extends to 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. Dept. of Employment v. Bake Young Realty, 98 Idaho 182, 184, 560 P.2d 504 (1977); J.R. Simplot Co. v. Dept. of Employment, 110 Idaho 762, 718 P.2d 1200 (1986). In determining whether a worker is engaged in an independent trade or business, the factors to be considered include: 1. Whether the worker has authority to hire subordinates; 2. Whether the worker owns major items of equipment or incurs substantial unreimbursed expenses. Although a factor of substantially less significance, the Commission also may consider whether either party would be liable to the other upon peremptory or unilateral termination of the business relationship. J.R. Simplot v. Dept. of Employment, supra. None of the foregoing factors is an absolute prerequisite to finding that the worker is engaged in an independent trade or business; nor do they represent an exhaustive list of possible factors to be considered. Other factors may include, for example: 1. Skills, qualifications, and training required for the job; 2. Methods of payment, benefits, and tax withholding; 3. Right to negotiate agreements with other workers; 4. Right to chose sales techniques or other business techniques; 5. Right to determine hours; 6. Existence of outside businesses or occupations; 7. Special licensing or regulatory requirements for performance of work. See, e.g., John L. King, P.A., v. Dept. of Employment, supra ; Larsen v. Dept. of Employment, 106 Idaho 382, 679 P.2d 659 (1984); Dept. of Employment v. Bake Young Realty, supra . Although covered employment may include independent contractors, the status of a worker as an independent contractor is a factor to be considered. Compare, Swayne v. Dept. of Employment, 93 Idaho 101, 456 P.2d 268 (1969); John L. King, P.A., v. Dept. of Employment, supra ; Software Associates v. Dept. of Employment, 110 Idaho 315, 715 P.2d 985 (1986); Dept. of Employment v. Bake Young Realty, supra . The question of status as an independent contractor is a question of fact. Larsen v. Dept. of Employment, supra . The Commission adopted a finding that there was no intent expressed in the provisions of the contract between the parties that Vendx's sales representatives had the status of independent contractors. The finding is contrary to the undisputed evidence. Every witness, whether appearing for Vendx or for the Department, testified to the status of all the sales representatives as independent contractors. Both of the contract forms referred to sales representatives as independent contractors. The 1987 contract form spelled out the independent contractor status of sales representatives in great detail. Neither the Department of Employment nor the Industrial Commission can dispose of contractual provisions for independent contractor status simply by ignoring them. J.R. Simplot v. Dept. of Employment, supra (Bakes, J., concurring specially). While the agreements of the parties constituted only one of the many factors to be considered, the Industrial Commission's decision failed to give the relevant contractual provisions any consideration whatsoever. The order of the Industrial Commission, therefore, is vacated and the case is remanded to make new findings after reviewing all of the evidence, including the undisputed agreements of the parties. Costs to appellant. BAKES, C.J., and BISTLINE and McDEVITT, JJ., concur.