Court Opinion

ID: 9744673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:12:11.111341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:50.931218
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RAKOWSKI, dissenting: Although I agree with the majority regarding the facts and statement of law, I do not agree with the conclusion. Accordingly, for the following reasons, I would reverse the decision of the circuit court. The claimant was hired as a handyman. The newspaper advertisement stated that the job was a $6-per-hour, permanent position involving farm maintenance and yard care. In my view, these facts strongly suggest an employer-employee relationship. Although the majority opinion concedes that the above facts are indicative of an employer-employee relationship, it reaches an opposite conclusion because the claimant was free to start work when he wished, was not supervised, and paid his own taxes. As previously stated, the claimant was a handyman. I really am not sure what kind of supervision the majority is searching for. One tells a handyman to cut the grass or repair a fence, and the handyman does it. Certainly, the fact that the employer is not hovering over him at every moment cannot transform one who is otherwise an employee into an independent contractor. Claimant generally started at 7 or 8 a.m. and worked until he finished his assigned tasks or when the sun went down. I am at a loss to understand how this fact is indicative of an independent contractor’s status. That was the agreement the parties made at the time the claimant was hired. Regarding taxes and benefits, the claimant stated that he did not object because he was concerned that such might interfere with his pension. In sum, there are many facts which point to an employer-employee relationship. The majority concedes this. Contrary to the majority, I fail to find any facts which lead to the conclusion that the claimant was an independent contractor. In my view, the opposite conclusion (employer-employee relationship) is clearly apparent.