Opinion ID: 71035
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Power to determine pay rates or methods of payment

Text: 46 The next factor is the degree to which the putative employer has the [p]ower to determine the pay rates or the methods of payments of the workers, 29 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(4)(ii)(C). In this case, Turke and the growers agreed to the payment of $3.90 per box. However, pay rate refers not only to the amount of compensation to be paid, but includes benefits such as worker's compensation insurance and social security, as well as how these various payments are allocated. Method of payment refers to the basis upon which a worker is paid, for example, by the hour or by the piece. See Aimable, 20 F.3d at 442; Griffin & Brand, 471 F.2d at 238. 47 The growers' power to exercise some control over the workers' pay in this case is evidenced by their deduction of money from their payments to Turke. First, rather than paying Turke the full $3.90 per box of beans harvested, they deducted 11cents per box to purchase worker's compensation insurance, decided which insurance to buy, and named themselves as the policy holders. Thus, Turke did not solely and independently establish wage rates and other benefits for the workers. Indeed, Turke could not purchase insurance to cover the workers because he lacked the economic wherewithal; in his own words, [he] didn't have the money to fork up for workman's comp right then and there. Thus, the farmworkers were dependent on the growers to obtain financial compensation for job-related injuries. See Fahs, 166 F.2d at 42 (finding dependence where employee covered by business' worker's compensation insurance); Hamilton v. Shell Oil Co., 215 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) (holding that relationship of employer-employee is essential to liability for workmen's compensation benefits); cf. Griffin & Brand, 471 F.2d at 236 (finding dependence where business deducted social security payments from check given to crew leader). 48 The evidence shows that the growers also deducted money from the negotiated box price to cover social security taxes, giving Turke a separate check for the employer and employees' shares of these taxes. The growers segregated the payments to ensure that Turke properly reported and paid the taxes on the farmworkers' labor. Cf. Griffin & Brand, 471 F.2d at 236 (observing that crew leader was totally incapable of seeing that social security [wa]s paid in behalf of the harvesting crews). Like the deduction for worker's compensation insurance, the growers' segregation of the social security payments limited Turke's freedom to allocate the money he received for his services. And just as the workers depended on the growers for worker's compensation coverage, they relied on them to see that the social security payments were made as well. Cf. id. (stating that [t]he fact that [the business] ... handled the social security contributions for the harvest workers also tend[s] to indicate an employment relationship). 14 49