 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Slaughter v. Klink8/18/2000
ndependent contractors and employees may need specialized skills to do certain jobs. However, retaining the right to require particular training as a condition of hire shows a degree of control and indicates that an employer is not simply interested in results. For example, in Doyle v. Mayfield (1988), 48 Ohio App.3d 113, a union sent one of its members to training sessions so that he could learn proper procedures for representing claimants at workers' compensation hearings. Id. at 115. Subsequently, the member was injured in the course of representing a claimant. Although the union argued that the member was an independent contractor, the court found he was a union employee. Among other things, the court relied on the training as evidence that the union controlled the manner in which the member conducted his job. Id. Therefore, requiring particular training can be very relevant. It also need not be employer-offered training. Instead, as we said, the fact that certain training is required as a condition of hire shows an employer's retention of the right to control. Even more important, however, is the fact that the legislature chose to include training as a feature of the "employment" relationship. As we stressed earlier, we may not either modify or interpret an unambiguous statute. City Iron Works, 52 Ohio St.2d at 4, and Wingate, 60 Ohio St.2d at 58. Consequently, we are not at liberty to disregard a factor that the legislature has said is relevant.
As a final point, we note that Slauter relies heavily on a "rebuttable presumption" which allegedly arises when parties have a written agreement describing their employment relationship. According to Slauter, such a presumption arose in the present case because Barrett and Klink signed a purchase order stating that Klink was an independent contractor.
As support for the use of a rebuttable presumption, Slauter cites McDonald v. Canton Free Press (Mar. 3, 1997), Stark App. No. 1996 CA 00286, unreported.
In McDonald, the Fifth District Court of Appeals held that a contract was "primary evidence" of the parties' employment relationship. Id. at p. 3. Factually, the parties had agreed in writing that a newspaper carrier was not an employee. They had also agreed to other contract terms that would normally describe an independent contractor relationship. Id. at 2-3. Ultimately, the Fifth District found that the carrier was not an employee. In particular, the court said that "the evidence contra was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of the parties' contractual relationship." Id.
By way of contrast, we have found authority indicating that contractual labels are not controlling and that courts must look to the substance of the relationship. Walker v. Lahoski (July 28, 1999), Summit App. No. 19293, unreported, p. 2. In Walker, the parties also had signed an agreement in which one party acknowledged that she was an independent contractor. Id. Despite this fact, the Ninth District found disputed facts and various indica of an employee relationship. As a result, the trial court's summary judgment decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for further consideration. Id. at 4.
Whether these approaches are consistent or can be reconciled is irrelevant for purposes of the present case. Significantly, the legislature did not focus in R.C. 4123.01(A)(1)(c) on how parties contractually describe their relationship. In fact, the only reference to a contract appears in R.C. 4123.01(A)(1)(c)(xx), which deals with whether " he person has the right to end the relationship with the other contracting party without incurring liability pursuant to an employment contract or agreement." As we previously emphasized, the statute con
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.
|
|