Stan Freund installed home satellite and entertainment systems for a company tha

Question

Stan Freund installed home satellite and entertainment systems for a company that sold these systems. The company scheduled installations, although Mr. Freund could reschedule them. The installer worked on his own but was required to wear a company shirt, follow certain minimum specifications for installations, not perform any additional services for customers without the company’s approval, and call the company to confirm that installations had been made and to report any problems. Mr. Freund was paid a set amount per installation. He used his own vehicle and tools. Mr. Freund was free to perform installations for other companies and to hire others to do installations. However, while other installers did accept jobs from other companies, Mr. Freund worked six days a week for this company. Is Mr. Freund an employee with rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act?

Explanation / Answer

The issue is whether Mr. Freund is an employee or a self employed contractor. Since this case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the financial substances ought to be utilized to choose this inquiry. The interests court asserted the preliminary court's deciding that the installer was a self employed contractor. In doing as such, both court's depended intensely on declaration from different installers who had set up their own organizations, procured partners, worked for other establishment agents, and did not work six days seven days for one organization. Without convincing proof that this present installer's association with Hi-Tech was novel, confirmation of how it treated its different installers was probative of the working relationship. As far as right of control, the lower court had reasoned that it favored contractor status in light of the fact that the installer could take every necessary step as he saw fit, to re-plan arrangements, and to work for different organizations. This end is far from being obviously true, since there were additionally various indicia of manager control, including the underlying booking of occupations, the required wearing of an organization shirt, the restriction against giving some other administrations to clients, and the prerequisite that establishments be accounted for quickly. Notwithstanding, the court declared that the control practiced over the installer was "the final product of consumer loyalty" as opposed to "everyday direction" of his work – and that this refinement matters for motivations behind evaluating right of control. He was viewed as ready to understand a benefit or misfortune in view of installment per work, the quantity of employments acknowledged, his productivity, and his capacity to procure colleagues. He utilized his own particular vehicle, instruments, and supplies. He had an exceptional expertise at establishment, which included investigating and managing adequately with clients. The main factor that the lower court said was reliable with work was that the installer's work was indispensable to the business.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.