Opinion ID: 1937458
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Base of Operations Test.

Text: If an individual's service is not localized in any state but some of the service is performed in this state, then the base of operation is the next controlling factor. See Iowa Code section 96.19(6)(b)(2). The statute fails to indicate whether the employer's base of operation or the employee's base of operation is the focus of this factor. However, an administrative rule provides, in part: Where services are performed equally between two (2) states by employees, the base of operation concept is involved. The place of more or less permanent nature from which the employee works is a state where contributions are payable. That is to say, the state where the employee starts work and to which the employee customarily returns is the state that collects the contributions. 345 Iowa Admin.Code § 3.24(1)(b). As indicated by the administrative rule and case law from other jurisdictions, the focus of the term base of operation is upon the employee. See Walco Leasing, 383 N.W.2d at 376-78; Heller, 91 Idaho at 93-94, 481 P.2d at 604-05; Mallia, 299 N.Y. at 239-40, 86 N.E.2d at 580-81, 9 A.L.R.2d at 643. Furthermore, the test is operative only if a single base of operation for the entire service is within a state where some of the service is performed. Mallia, 299 N.Y. at 240, 86 N.E.2d at 581, 9 A.L.R.2d at 643. See 76 Am.Jur.2d Unemployment Compensation § 33, p. 918 (1975). If the employee maintains more than one base of operation during a reporting period, the agency must apply the next statutory test. The agency found that construction sites would require supervision and direction on a local basis at the site itself. It further stated that [c]ommon knowledge would require one to assume that construction projects are supervised from a base of operations at or near the localization of the job site. The agency concluded that necessarily there was a base of operations within the state of Iowa where the services of such employees were directed or controlled in the state of Iowa. The agency erred in two respects. First, it misapplied the base of operation test in focusing on the employer rather than the employees. Second, it applied the test where the undisputed evidence showed the employees maintained bases of operation in both Iowa and Wisconsin during the reporting periods. Since the entire services were not localized in either state and there was not a single base of operation, we resort to the next statutory test.