Opinion ID: 1709176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: wcab reliance on roman

Text: The dissent in the original WCAB opinion in this case read in pertinent part as follows: In Roman v Delta Broadcasting Co, 334 Mich 669 (1952), the Court stated the following test at page 671: `That distinction between (1) work which is part of the business of the principal and (2) work, contracted to be done for it, which is not part of its business and therefore not work undertaken by it, was clearly recognized in Burt v Munising Woodenware Co, 222 Mich 699, and Rinebold v Bray, 248 Mich 321.' Therefore, based upon the foregoing, the proper inquiry is whether the retail sale of gasoline and oil is part of the business of Gulf Oil. The evidence does not establish that Gulf engaged in retail sales of products. Its plan of organization was sales or consignment of products to distributors like Bole with subsequent sale by distributors to retail dealers like Lang. The testimony established that Lang was solely in charge of how, when, for what price, and under what conditions Lang operated and sold Gulf products. The question for consideration then is the kind of work which Gulf would normally do through its own employees. 1A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 49.12. The answer is that Gulf did not retail gasoline or petroleum products through its own employees, and it did not do so in this instance. Records & Briefs of Supreme Court No 3, April, 1978, Appendix, p 353a. It should be noted that the controlling WCAB opinion agreed with the dissent on this point. It is clear that under the rule in Burt, DeWitt, and Woody the WCAB applied the wrong test. The WCAB quotes the test as whether the retail sale of gasoline and oil is part of the business of Gulf Oil and concludes that it is not. The test, of course, is whether Gulf undertook with Lang to do transmission repair work. Moreover, the WCAB then applied the narrow rule it borrowed from Larson, supra, that is, is it the kind of work which Gulf would normally do through its own employees. However, this is a completely erroneous application of the test in Burt, DeWitt, and Woody. This Court was not concerned with whether the Munising Woodenware Company employees would normally repair boilers, nor whether the Grand Rapids Fuel Company would normally make conveyor repairs, nor whether the employees of Delta Broadcasting Company would normally disassemble a broadcast tower, nor whether the bank's employees in Harris v Fry & Kain, supra , would normally lay drainage tile. In short, the WCAB's reliance on and application of Roman does violence to the controlling precedent of Burt, DeWitt, and Woody. [10] As for reliance on the Virginia cases, the Virginia statute is different from the Michigan WDCA, and reliance on it is unwarranted. [11]