Instructions, deadline given to worker don't reveal employment relationship
Soloman v. Dayton Window and Decor Co., LLC, et al., No. 24299 (Ohio Ct. App. 12/02/11).
The Ohio Court of Appeals held that a worker was not entitled to benefits because he was an independent contractor.
What it means: In Ohio, a company setting a deadline for a worker does not suggest that the worker is an employee.
Summary: A company was hired to install replacement windows in an apartment building. The company's owner realized that the person doing the job could not complete it by himself by the three-day deadline. The owner hired a worker to help install the replacement windows. While the worker was removing a metal bracket from a window frame, a piece of metal chipped off and struck him in the eye. He sought benefits. The parties disputed whether the worker was an employee of the company when he was injured. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that he was an independent contractor and not entitled to benefits.
The court found that the evidence did not show that the worker was required to follow instructions about how to do the job. He was only given instructions on the best way to remove the old window and install the replacement for the first few windows.
The court pointed out that the owner did not tell the worker when to take breaks or when he could leave for the day. The court explained that setting a deadline for the completion of a job does not show the same level of control as telling a worker the hours he must work.
The court said that some materials were furnished by the owner. Some tools belonged to the worker, and some belonged to the other person hired by the owner. The court found this did not show the worker was an employee.
Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.
January 19, 2012
Copyright 2012© LRP Publications