Court Opinion

ID: 9563383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:39:10.007983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:49.008057
License: Public Domain

FOET, J.,
dissenting.
The "Workmen’s Compensation Board here concluded that Daniel Oremus was an employe of the Ore.gonian Publishing Company. In this court’s previous opinion in this case, 3 Or App 92, 470 P2d 162, Sup Ct review denied (1970), we said:
“* * * Should the board find an employer-employe relationship they should also make ‘any necessary monetary adjustment between the parties involved.’ OES 656.307” 3 Or App at 96.
Essentially in this opinion the board applied the test known as “the relative nature of the work test.” It contends that this test is not a departure from the test of right of control. Eather, the board concluded it is actually a refinement by which the right of control may be determined as a matter of economic reality with a broad view of the relative nature of the work. In so doing it relied on Bowser v. State Indus. Accident Comm., 182 Or 42, 185 P2d 891 (1947); United States v. Silk, 331 US 704, 67 S Ct 1463, 91 L Ed 1757 (1947); and Wallowa Valley Stages v. Oregonian, 235 Or 594, 386 P2d 430 (1963). I do not believe it is realistic to allow the publishing company, which in reality exercises virtually complete control over the newsboy and *449its agent Leibrand, to insulate itself from the burdens of an employer-employe relationship through the subterfuge of an allegedly independent contractor.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court and reinstate that of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.