Opinion ID: 2679984
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Salesmen

Text: [¶20] The Commission similarly determined that Sinclair failed to meet its burden for both prongs A and B with respect to its two salesmen. Sinclair argues that the Commission’s finding that the salesmen were not free from the company’s direction and control is not supported by the evidence in the record because Sinclair provided only certain leads and did not instruct them on how to make sales. Further, Sinclair argues that the salesmen were not located in Sinclair’s place of business for the purpose of part B. [¶21] In Hasco Manufacturing Company, we addressed whether salespeople were free from the direction or control of a company that was in the business of fabricating and selling aluminum products “in the form of windows, doors, storm sash[es], combination windows and garages.” 158 Me. at 416, 185 A.2d 442. Despite the absence of a written contract between Hasco and its salespeople, we affirmed findings that the salespeople received a commission from the sales that they made of Hasco products, and that Hasco set the terms of all sales and ultimately accepted or rejected all transactions initiated by its salespeople. Id. at 416-17. We concluded that, based on these factual findings, the court was correct 13 in concluding that the salespeople were not free from Hasco’s direction or control over the performance of their services. Id. at 418. [¶22] Similarly, the evidence in the record supports the Commission’s findings that Sinclair had the right to control the performance of the salesmen’s services. Sinclair dictated the terms of their sales, provided a set commission, without negotiation from either salesman, and gave the salesmen business cards bearing Sinclair’s name and logo. See id. at 416-18. Additionally, Sinclair’s president testified that he would ultimately choose which sales to make, taking the most potentially lucrative clients. See id. Therefore, we conclude that the Commission did not err in determining that Sinclair failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the salesmen were free from its direction and control. See 26 M.R.S. § 1043(11)(E)(1); Hasco Mfg. Co., 158 Me. at 416-18, 185 A.2d 442. Having concluded that the Commission did not err with respect to part A of the ABC test, we decline to address whether the salesmen acted within the usual course or regular place of Sinclair’s business pursuant to part B. See Hasco Mfg. Co., 158 Me. at 415, 185 A.2d 442.