Opinion ID: 2015825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: express or implied contract of hire

Text: Kaiser's first and third assignments of error contest the district court's finding that Kaiser entered into at least an implied contract of hire with Millard Lumber. Both the Daniels test and relevant statute require such a finding to provide Millard Lumber immunity from Kaiser's negligence lawsuit. Section 48-114 states that every person, firm, or corporation, including any public service corporation, who is engaged in any trade, occupation, business, or profession... and who has any person in service under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written constitutes an employer subject to the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act. Section 48-114 determines whether Millard Lumber is an employer, but not whether it is Kaiser's employer. Section 48-115 determines whether Kaiser is an employee under the act, stating: The terms employee and worker ... shall be construed to mean:.... (2) Every person in the service of an employer who is engaged in any trade, occupation, business, or profession ... under any contract of hire, expressed or implied, oral or written.... The determination that Kaiser is an employee pursuant to § 48-115 is necessary to engage the exclusivity language of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-109 (Reissue 1993), which states: If both employer and employee become subject to the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, both shall be bound by the schedule of compensation provided in such act.... (Emphasis supplied.) Whether a contract of hire is established is ordinarily a question of fact. Parson v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 514 N.W.2d 891 (Iowa 1994); Polk County v. Steinbach, 374 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 1985). Compare Williams v. Williams Janitorial Service, 207 Neb. 344, 299 N.W.2d 160 (1980) (stating that determination of whether party is employee is question of fact). A court may find a contract of hire established as a matter of law, as in Daniels v. Pamida, Inc., 251 Neb. 921, 561 N.W.2d 568 (1997), only when but one inference can reasonably be drawn from the facts. In Daniels, this court stated the following facts as determinative in finding that an implied contract of hire was established as a matter of law: The evidence demonstrates that A-Help paid Daniels' wages and provided all payroll services such as withholding taxes and Social Security contributions. A-Help directed Daniels to report to the customer of its choice. However, Daniels had the right to refuse to report to any assignment as well as the right to terminate any assignment given. Daniels voluntarily went to work for Pamida and performed the tasks assigned to him. There is no question that Daniels had made at least an implied contract of hire with Pamida, and, therefore, part (a) of the three-factor test has been satisfied. 251 Neb. at 928, 561 N.W.2d at 572. Kaiser, however, asserts that he has raised additional facts not raised in Daniels which indicate that there was no implied contract of hire between him and Millard Lumber that are nonetheless relevant. Those facts are as follows: (1) Kaiser was treated differently than Millard Lumber's regular employees in that he did not receive the same safety training, (2) he was treated differently in that he had to pay for his own hardhat, (3) Noll intended to remain Kaiser's sole employer, and (4) Noll set up his pay schedule and was the provider of all his benefits. He asserts this evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he and Millard Lumber created an implied contract of hire. The term implied or inferred contract, also sometimes called an implied in fact contract, refers to that class of obligations which arises from mutual agreement and intent to promise, when the agreement and promise have simply not been expressed in words. 1 Samuel Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 1:5 at 20 (Richard A. Lord 4th ed.1990). This court has stated: An implied contract arises where the intention of the parties is not expressed but where the circumstances are such as to show a mutual intent to contract. Acton v. Schoenauer, 121 Neb. 62, 63, 236 N.W. 140, 141 (1931). See Bloomfield v. Nebraska State Bank, 237 Neb. 89, 465 N.W.2d 144 (1991) (stating that evidence of mutual intent is necessary to prove existence of implied contract). The determination of the parties' intent to make a contract is normally a question of fact. 75A Am.Jur.2d Trial § 795 (1991). Such intent is to be gathered from objective manifestationsthe conduct of the parties, language used, or acts done by them, or other pertinent circumstances surrounding the transaction. Cowan v. Mervin Mewes, Inc., 546 N.W.2d 104 (S.D.1996). See, James Hardie Gypsum, Inc. v. Inquipco, 112 Nev. 1397, 929 P.2d 903 (1996); Fairchild v. Fairchild, 176 Neb. 95, 125 N.W.2d 191 (1963). Testimony regarding subjective, secret intentions or understandings is not probative evidence. Walker v. U.S. General, Inc., 916 P.2d 903 (Utah 1996); Mullen v. Christiansen, 642 P.2d 1345 (Alaska 1982); Fairchild v. Fairchild, supra . Compare Cowan v. Mervin Mewes, Inc., 546 N.W.2d at 108 (stating `if a party voluntarily indulges in conduct reasonably indicating assent he may be bound even though his conduct does not truly express the state of his mind'). Thus, evidence of objective manifestations that could reasonably infer that either Kaiser or Millard Lumber did not intend to enter into a contract of hire would present a genuine issue of material fact. We note that the Iowa Supreme Court, which requires the same showing of an express or implied contract of hire to determine if a loaned employee has become an employee of the special employer, follows a similar analysis. See, Parson v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 514 N.W.2d 891 (Iowa 1994) (outlining whether any facts indicated loaned employee or special employer intended not to enter into contract of hire, in order to determine whether summary judgment for special employer should be reversed); Bride v. Heckart, 556 N.W.2d 449 (Iowa 1996) (citing Parson for proposition that determining whether employment relationship exists can be accomplished by looking at intention of parties). The relevant facts stated in Daniels to prove an implied contract of hire focused solely upon the employee's intent. Those facts are that the loaned employee (1) had the right to refuse an assignment by the labor broker, (2) voluntarily went to work for the special employer, and (3) performed the tasks assigned to him by the special employer. However, facts were present which reasonably inferred Pamida, the special employer, intended to consider Daniels, the loaned employee, as its employee. Specifically, evidence that Pamida personnel were Daniels' exclusive supervisors and controlled all details of Daniels' work on its premises indicated Pamida intended to enter an implied contract of hire with Daniels. See, Swanson v. White Consol. Industries, Inc., 30 F.3d 971 (8th Cir.1994); Parson v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 514 N.W.2d at 895-96 n. 2 (Iowa 1994) (stating that evidence that special employer has right to control the details of the work and is `the responsible authority in charge of the work' infers special employer's consent to enter employment relationship with loaned employee). In order to meet the first element of the Daniels test, Millard Lumber had the initial burden to produce evidence supporting an intent of both Kaiser and itself to enter a contract of hire. See, Stiver v. Allsup, Inc., 255 Neb. 687, 587 N.W.2d 77 (1998) Battle Creek State Bank v. Preusker, 253 Neb. 502, 571 N.W.2d 294 (1997). Millard Lumber met that burden. Here, the facts show that while Noll paid Kaiser's wages, provided all payroll services, and directed Kaiser to report to the customer of its choice, Kaiser had the right to refuse or terminate any assignment given. Kaiser understood this right. The evidence undisputedly shows he exercised that right when he requested to be removed from the Able Professional Movers assignment. The evidence undisputedly indicates Kaiser voluntarily went to work at Millard Lumber and performed the tasks Millard Lumber assigned to him each day. Millard Lumber presented evidence regarding its intent to enter an implied contract of hire by showing that its personnel were Kaiser's sole supervisors and solely controlled every detail of his work on its premises. Thus, Millard Lumber met its burden of producing evidence on the Daniels test's contract-of-hire element, and the burden shifts to Kaiser to present evidence that shows a genuine issue of material fact. See Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526, 567 N.W.2d 100 (1997). Thus, we now consider Kaiser's arguments on the implied contract-of-hire element of the Daniels test. Kaiser argues that Millard Lumber treated loaned Noll employees materially differently than its own employees, raising a genuine issue of fact as to Millard Lumber's intent to enter an implied contract of hire with Kaiser. Specifically, Kaiser argues that evidence showing that Millard Lumber did not provide his hardhat and that temporary employees could not attend monthly safety meetings that were mandatory for regular Millard Lumber employees reasonably infers that Millard Lumber did not intend to enter a contract of hire with Kaiser. Some courts have determined that in particular circumstances, a difference in treatment indicates a special employer does not consider a loaned employee its own employee and thus manifests an intent not to enter a contract of hire. See, Parson v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 514 N.W.2d 891 (Iowa 1994) (stating that when loaned employees are required to use separate break rooms, are prohibited from using cafeteria and locker room, and are prohibited from joining company labor association, these facts infer special employer did not intend to enter contract of hire with loaned employee); Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co., 23 Cal.3d 168, 588 P.2d 811, 151 Cal.Rptr. 671 (1979) (stating that jury verdict finding employment relationship was not created between special employer and loaned employee could be upheld in part by evidence that loaned employee's primary employer provided him with almost all necessary tools and equipment, including hardhat); Barajas v. USA Petroleum Corp., 184 Cal. App.3d 974, 984, 229 Cal.Rptr. 513, 518 (1986) (stating that jury verdict finding two loaned employees did not become employees of special employer could be upheld in part on evidence of the differences in the treatment of workers). We recognize the possibility that certain differences in treatment between a special employer's regular employees and a loaned employee might reasonably infer in certain circumstances that the special employer intended to not enter into a contract of hire with the loaned employee. However, without attempting to define or set out what particular differences in treatment would raise a reasonable inference, we conclude that Kaiser does not present sufficient evidence to show he was actually treated differently than Millard Lumber's regular employees. Kaiser presented uncontroverted evidence that Noll provided his hardhat and that the cost was deducted from his wages. Kaiser argues that the fact that he had to pay for his own hardhat from Noll infers Millard Lumber intended not to enter into a contract of hire. King, Noll's placement coordinator, testified that she believed Millard Lumber supplied hardhats to its regular employees. However, she stated, I don't know if they had them payroll deducted. The record contains no documents or testimony from Millard Lumber personnel on whether Millard Lumber in fact paid for the hardhats provided to its regular employees. With the record silent on the issue, no conclusion can be made that Millard Lumber treated Kaiser any differently, because Millard Lumber may have required its regular employees to purchase hardhats. The burden rested upon Kaiser to present sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable inference, and Kaiser has failed to do that. Likewise, Kaiser argues that the evidence indicates that Noll employees who worked at Millard Lumber were not included in monthly safety meetings that Millard Lumber regular employees, doing the same work, attended. Kaiser asserts that difference in treatment indicates Millard Lumber did not intend to enter a contract of hire. Each foreman in a particular area held a monthly safety meeting for the group of employees he or she supervised. Attendance was mandatory. Kaiser presented evidence showing that safety meetings were held for the area in which he worked, the main yard. Kaiser did not attend any monthly safety meeting. We note, however, and Kaiser's counsel conceded at oral argument, that the record is silent as to whether such a safety meeting was held on any of the 4 days Kaiser worked at Millard Lumber. Thus, Kaiser presented insufficient evidence to show that he was treated differently in regard to the safety meetings. Kaiser nonetheless argues that the record proves that Noll employees generally were excluded from such meetings. However, we find the record does not support that argument. Kaiser next argues that a statement in the application Kaiser signed with Noll raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether an implied contract of hire was created. The pertinent sentence in the application stated: If asked by a client of Noll Temporary Services to complete an employment application or other related materials, I agree to immediately contact Noll Temporary Services. That statement indicates only Noll's desire for Kaiser to remain its employee exclusively. Noll's intent is irrelevant to the determination of whether Kaiser and Millard Lumber established an implied contract of hire, and thus no reasonable inference can be drawn from this evidence in Kaiser's favor on this issue. Kaiser next argues that the fact that Noll set up the pay schedule and was the immediate provider of all benefits to Kaiser raises a genuine issue of material fact. This fact was present and considered in Daniels, but did not preclude this court from finding an implied contract of hire as a matter of law. Other courts have also determined that evidence that the special employer is not the immediate provider of wages and benefits does not preclude a finding of an implied contract of hire as a matter of law. Pettaway v. Mobile Paint Mfg. Co., Inc., 467 So.2d 228 (Ala.1985); Wright v. Habco, Inc., 419 S.W.2d 34 (Mo.1967). As in Daniels, we reject this argument.