Opinion ID: 773006
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board's Analysis

Text: 31 As the Board noted in its decision below, it 32 has applied three tests to determine whether an employer employee relationship exists within the meaning of the Act: (1) the relative nature of the work, (2) the right to control details of the work, and (3)... Restatement (Second) of Agency, Section 220, subsection 2, which encompasses factors set forth in each of the other two tests. The administrative law judge should apply whichever test is best suited to the facts of the particular case. Where the administrative law judge's application of one test is affirmable, the Board need not address the administrative law judge's application of the other tests. 33 Marinelli, 2000 WL 1133566, at . 7 Moreover, because the Board reviews an ALJ's findings of fact to ensure that they are consistent with the law, Port Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Hunter, 227 F.3d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 2000), the Board may apply one or more of the tests even if the ALJ has not applied them, see Reilly v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., BRB No. 84-391, 1987 WL 107386, at  (B.R.B. May 22, 1987) (applying all three tests where ALJ applied no test to reverse ALJ's determination that no employer-employee relationship existed). 34 The Board surmised (i) that the ALJ considered two factors listed in the Restatement (Second) of Agency: the method of payment of wages and the extent of control over the details of work, and (ii) that the ALJ determined that ASL's payment of Marinelli's wages outweighed any consideration of whether ASL controlled the details of Marinelli's work. Marinelli, 2000 WL 1135566, at . Noting that it was undisputed that, pursuant to the CBA, ASL paid Marinelli's wages, the Board affirmed the ALJ's determination that ASL was Marinelli's employer. Id. 35 The Board's surmise that the ALJ relied on the method of payment of wages factor listed in the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2) is dubious. Section 220(2)(g) concerns the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job. The ALJ, however, did not focus on whether ASL paid Marinelli by the hour or by the job. Rather, the ALJ based his conclusion that ASL was Marinelli's employer on the fact that ASL paid his wages. Furthermore, Section 220(1) defines an employee as a person employed to perform services in the affairs of another and who with respect to the physical conduct in the performance of the services is subject to the other's control or right to control. § 220(1) (emphasis added). The various factors listed in Section 220(2) - including the method of payment factor - thus are factors that are considered in determining whether the worker is subject to the other's control or right to control. § 220(2). It is thus difficult to square the Board's finding that the ALJ was relying on the method of payment factor with the ALJ's claim that the issue of whether ASL controlled Marinelli's job duties was irrelevant. 8