Opinion ID: 427313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Right-to-Control Test

Text: 50 This case is controlled by our decision in Seafarers, and we adopt by reference the relevant analysis therein. 51 In 1947, Congress specifically exempted independent contractors from the coverage of the Act: 52 [W]hen used in this Act ... the term employee ... shall not include ... any individual having the status of an independent contractor .... 53 61 Stat. 140 (1947), codified at 29 U.S.C. Sec. 152(3) (1976). The legislative history of the amendment creating this exemption is set forth in Seafarers, supra, 603 F.2d at 904-07, and in NLRB v. United Insurance Co., 390 U.S. 254, 88 S.Ct. 988, 19 L.Ed.2d 1083 (1968). 54 The right-to-control test by which the Board and the courts distinguish between these two types of workers requires a totality of the circumstances approach, and no one factor is determinative. Seafarers, supra, 603 F.2d at 872-73 (citing FritoLay, Inc. v. NLRB, 385 F.2d 180, 187 (7th Cir.1967); NLRB v. A.S. Abell Co., 327 F.2d 1, 4 (4th Cir.1964); News Syndicate Co., 164 N.L.R.B. 422 (1967)). Nonetheless, the most important factor to be considered is the extent of actual supervision exercised by a putative employer over the means and manner of the workers' performance. Seafarers, supra, 603 F.2d at 873; Lodge 1858 v. Webb, 580 F.2d 496, 505 (D.C.Cir.1978). 55 Despite the apparent amorphousness of the test, however, we drew attention in Seafarers to certain crucial factors that outweigh characteristics of minor importance. 603 F.2d at 878. Of particular relevance to the facts of the present case, we remarked: 56 When a driver pays a fixed rental, regardless of his earnings on a particular day, and when he retains all the fares he collects without having to account to the company in any way, there is a strong inference that the cab company involved does not exert control over the means and manner of his performance. This conclusion is justified because under such circumstances, the company simply would have no financial incentive to exert control over its drivers, other than such as is necessary to immunize the proprietor of a cab from liability which arises from its operation by virtue of the lessor's ownership. However the driver conducts his occupation, the company has received its financial reward and the cab driver's self interest in the success of his venture and the municipal regulations are some assurance that the cab service will continue to be attractive to customers. 57 Id. at 879 (quoted with approval in Air Transit, Inc. v. NLRB, 679 F.2d 1095, 1099 (4th Cir.1982)). Although these same crucial factors exist in Suburban, the Board majority has stated that the reality of the situation convinces us that [Suburban] retain[s] not only control over the result to be achieved, but also the means by which that result is effected. 262 NLRB No. 89, at 3 (JA 60). 58 Our task on review, therefore, is to determine whether the record contains evidence of control sufficient to overcome the strong inference which arises from the financial incentives created by the economic realities of the leasing operations. The Board claims to have discharged this heavy burden by identifying facts that distinguish Suburban from Seafarers. To this end, it principally relies on factors weighed in our recent Orlando opinion. The Board has misinterpreted our Orlando decision.