UC - employee v. indpt. contractor - right to control
King’s Kountry Corner, LLC v. Dept. of Labor and Industry – October 14, 2015 – Cmwlth. Court – unreported memorandum opinion
The court affirmed the Department decision that “members” of a limited liability corp. who worked at its stores as salespersons and doing delivery work were “employees” of the LLC and should be subject to UC tax as employees, rejecting the LLC claim that they were independent contractors. One person held a 93% interest in the LLC and the members each had a 1% interest. KKC reported compensation paid to members who did sales and delivery work to the federal tax authorities.
The provisions of the Law must be liberally and broadly construed to achieve its objectives of ensuring that employees who become unemployed through no fault of their own are provided with some semblance of economic security. Wedner Unemployment Compensation Case, 296 A.2d 792, 796 (Pa. 1972).
The term "employment" is broadly defined as "all personal service performed for remuneration by an individual under any contract of hire, express or implied, written or oral, including service in interstate commerce, and service as an officer of a corporation." Section 4(l)(1) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 753(l)(1). Once it has been shown that an individual has performed service for wages, he or she is presumed to be an employee. Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Law; Cameron v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., Bureau of Emp'r Tax Operations, 699 A.2d 843, 846 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). The burden then shifts to the employer to establish an exemption from employment. Hoey v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., Bureau of Emp't Sec., 499 A.2d 1124, 1127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Right to control
It is the right or authority to exercise control or to interfere with the work of another, not the actual control, that creates an employment relationship. Cameron, 699 A.2d at 846. In order to discern whether the employees were truly employees or independent contractors, it is necessary to look beyond the contract between the employer and the employees to the true facts of the employment. Hoey, 499 A.2d at 1127. Kountry Korner's managing member had "the authority to … [m]onitor, supervise, manage and control the business activities of the Company and its employees," as established by testimony and the LLC’s Operating Agreement
Because the members performed services for wages, the burden shifted to Kountry Korner to establish that they were not subject to its control or direction over their performance and that they were customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Law. As the Department correctly noted, Kountry Korner did not present any evidence to meet its burden.
An unreported case may not be cited “binding precedent” but can be cited “for its persuasive value. . . .” See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414 (a) and Pa. R.A.P. 3716 [45 Pa.B. 3975; Saturday, July 25, 2015]
If the case is old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar)