Opinion ID: 2102404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Wage Payment Collection Act, Iowa Code Chapter 91A.

Text: Iowa Code section 91A.8 provides: When it has been shown that an employer has intentionally failed to pay an employee wages or reimburse expenses pursuant to section 91A.3, whether as the result of a wage dispute or otherwise, the employer shall be liable to the employee for any wages or expenses that are so intentionally failed to be paid or reimbursed, plus liquidated damages, court costs and any attorney's fees incurred in recovering the unpaid wages and determined to have been usual and necessary. In other instances the employer shall be liable only for unpaid wages or expenses, court costs and usual and necessary attorney's fees incurred in recovering the unpaid wages or expenses. The act by its terms protects only employeesnot independent contractors. The act defines an employee as a natural person who is employed in this state for wages by an employer. Employee does not mean a licensed person employed on a contractual basis for professional services. Iowa Code § 91A.2(3). Wages are defined as compensation owed by an employer for: a. Labor or services rendered by an employee, whether determined on a time, task, piece, commission, or other basis of calculation. Iowa Code § 91A.2(4). In arguing that Miller was an independent contractor, Component Homes points to the Regional Sales Managers Agreement which provided: The [regional sales manager] is an independent contractor and is in no way an agent of [Component Homes], either expressed or implied, and ... has no authority to enter into any contract or agreement on behalf of [Component Homes] or to act as an agent for [it] in any way. It also introduced testimony by Miller's income tax preparer who stated Miller considered himself an independent contractor for tax purposes. This evidence, Component Homes argues, compels a conclusion that Miller was an independent contractor as a matter of law. To determine whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee we look primarily to see who has the right of control. See Greenwell v. Meredith Corp., 189 N.W.2d 901, 904-05 (Iowa 1971). The facts demonstrating Miller's status as an employee are numerous. He received training from Component Homes. Sales materials, contract forms, and business cards, all prominently displaying Component's name, were supplied by defendant as were customer leads and selling tips. Each week, Miller was required to attend a sales meeting. At the end of each day, he was required to call one of defendant's officers to discuss his progress. Once a week, Miller and the officer would review the week's progress and talk about prospects for the future. Additionally, Miller was not allowed to price defendant's products despite his consistent contact with his customers; each potential project had to be referred to defendant for calculations. Component Homes' job application form, signed by Miller, provided that he agree[d] to be governed and to abide by all company rules and regulations and that compliance with all of these terms is a condition of my employment with Component Homes, Inc.; and noncompliance therewith may subject me to dismissal, at the Company's option. We conclude there was substantial evidence to support the finding that Miller was an employee under chapter 91A, and the trial court properly submitted the case on that basis.