Opinion ID: 784946
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the work was a specialty job on the production line;

Text: 30 (2) whether responsibility under the contracts between a labor contractor and an employer pass from one labor contractor to another without material changes; 31 (3) whether the premises and equipment of the employer are used for the work; 32 (4) whether the employees had a business organization that could or did shift as a unit from one worksite to another; 33 (5) whether the work was piecework and not work that required initiative, judgment or foresight; 34 (6) whether the employee had an opportunity for profit or loss depending upon the alleged employee's managerial skill; 35 (7) whether there was permanence in the working relationship; and 36 (8) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer's business. 37 Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). 38 Based on a review of all these factors, Torres-Lopez concluded that the grower should be considered a joint employer with the labor contractor, because the grower exercised considerable control over the farmworkers and the farmworkers were economically dependent on the grower for their work. Id. at 644.