Opinion ID: 2299760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Relative Nature of the Work Test

Text: The relative nature of the work test requires a court to examine the extent of the economic dependence of the worker upon the business he serves and the relationship of the nature of his work to the operation of that business. Marcus v. Eastern Agricultural Ass'n, 58 N.J.Super. 584, 603, 157 A. 2d 3 (App.Div.1959)(Conford, J. dissenting), rev'g on dissent, 32 N.J. 460, 161 A. 2d 247 (1960). That test addresses various situations in which the control test does not emerge as the dispositive factor. For example, where it is not in the nature of the work for the manner of its performance to be within the hiring party's direct control, the factor of control can obviously not be the critical one in the resolution of the case, but takes its place as only one of the various potential indicia of the relationship which must be balanced and weighed in determining what, under the totality of the circumstances, the character of that relationship really is. [ Marcus, supra, 58 N.J.Super. at 597, 157 A. 2d 3 (Conford, J.A.D., dissenting).] Although used primarily in workers' compensation cases, the New Jersey courts have found that the relative nature of the work test may sometimes be useful in other contexts. New Jersey Property, supra, 195 N.J.Super. at 11, 477 A. 2d 826 (acknowledging that there may be non-compensation cases involving social legislation where public policy considerations require that the control test be supplemented by the relative nature of the work standard). Two New Jersey cases have relied explicitly on the relative nature of the work test to determine that workers are employees within the meaning of the Tort Claims Act. Delbridge, supra, 238 N.J.Super. at 323, 569 A. 2d 854, held that designated pro bono attorneys acting on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender are employees under the Tort Claims Act. Ibid. The court reasoned that the creation of the Office of the Public Defender involved social legislation where public policy considerations required the application of the relative nature of the work test, even though the case arose under the Tort Claims Act. Id. at 321, 569 A. 2d 854. Dunellen v. F. Montecalvo Contracting Co., 273 N.J.Super. 23, 28-30, 640 A. 2d 1185 (App.Div.1994), applied the relative nature of the work test to determine that a borough engineer was entitled to indemnification under a borough ordinance adopted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:10-4. The control test was not an appropriate gauge because as is the case with all professional employees, the governing body did not control the details of how [the engineer] performed ... services. Id. at 28, 640 A. 2d 1185. The result in Dunellen implies that it is appropriate generally to apply the relative nature of the work test in situations involving work performed by professional employees. Ibid. See also Wajner v. Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, 298 N.J.Super. 116, 120-21, 689 A. 2d 143 (App.Div.1997)(finding under both control test and relative nature of work test that medical students acting as staff-residents at affiliated UMDNJ hospitals are employees under Tort Claims Act). The relative nature of the work test supplements the control test in limited circumstances. If a working relationship was created by social legislation under which public policy concerns dictate a more liberal standard, then a court may apply the relative nature of the work test rather than the control test. Wajner, supra, 298 N.J.Super. at 120, 689 A. 2d 143; Delbridge, supra, 238 N.J.Super. at 321, 569 A. 2d 854; Dunellen, supra, 273 N.J.Super. at 28-29, 640 A. 2d 1185. Also, if the working relationship involves professional services where an employer cannot exercise control over the methods used to provide those services, the relative nature of the work test may provide a more accurate assessment of the working relationship. Dunellen, supra, 273 N.J.Super. at 28, 640 A. 2d 1185.