 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Slaughter v. Klink8/18/2000
many years and was also not defined in predecessor statutes. See Gillum v. Indus. Comm. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 373, 380, quoting from G.C. 1465-61 (a predecessor section to R.C. 4123.01). In Gillum, the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed various definitions of master, servant, and independent contractor, in order to decide the meaning of "in service." Ultimately, the Court held that:
hether one is an independent contractor or in service depends on the facts of each case. The principal test applied to determine the character of the arrangement is that if the employer reserves the right to control the manner or means of doing the work, the relation created is that of master and servant, while if the manner or means of doing the work or job is left to one who is responsible to the employer only for the result, an independent contractor relationship is thereby created. Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
After the Proctor decision, R.C. 4123.01 was amended and the definitions of "employee" were moved to R.C. 4123.01(A)(1). The qualifying phrases restricting the definition of employee were also changed, but the statute still retained the phrase "in the service of." At that time, R.C. 4123.01(A)(1)(b) defined "employee" as:
very person in the service of any person, firm, or private corporation * * * that (i) employs one or more persons regularly in the same business or in or about the same establishment under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, including aliens and minors, household workers who earn one hundred sixty dollars or more in cash in any calendar quarter from a single household and casual workers who earn one hundred sixty dollars or more in cash in any calendar quarter from a single employer, or (ii) is bound by any such contract of hire or by any other written contract, to pay into the state insurance fund the premiums provided by this chapter.
During the time this version of the statute was in effect, the Ohio Supreme Court continued to use Gillum's test for evaluating employee status. Specifically, in Bostic v. Connor (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 144, the Ohio Supreme Court held that:
hether someone is an employee or an independent contractor is ordinarily an issue of fact. The key factual determination is who had the right to control the manner or means of doing the work. Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus, approving and following Gillum v. Indus. Comm. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 373.
In Bostic, the Court also noted that if the evidence did not conflict or was admitted, the employment issue would be one of law, to be decided by a court. Id. at 146. However, if the claimant offered "some evidence" that he was an employee instead of an independent contractor, the matter would become a jury question. Id. at 146-47.
As we mentioned earlier, Slauter urges us to use the common law or "right to control" test to decide Klink's status. Slauter further says that summary judgment was improper under the common law standard, since he presented "some evidence" that Klink was an independent contractor. Unfortunately, however, Slauter's argument does not recognize the effect of a 1996 amendment to R.C. 4123.01. This amendment was effective on September 17, 1996, about three weeks before Slauter's accident, and added a new subsection to the statute. As amended, the statute now says that:
s used in this chapter:
(A)(1) "Employee" means:
(c) Every person who performs labor or provides services pursuant to a construction contract, as defined in section 4123.79 of the Revised Code, if at least ten of the following criteria apply:
(i) The person is required to comply with
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|