The Appellate Court-1st District reversed the Commission’s holding that
claimant-truck driver was not an employee of defendant’s leasing
company, where a majority of the factors to be considered in making this
determination, including the two most important ones-right to control
the actions of the employee and the nature of the work performed by the
employee in relation to the general business of the employer-indicated
claimant was an employee. The fact defendant’s actions were often
directed at ensuring compliance with federal regulations did not
diminish the finding that it exercised control over claimant.
Claimant, an over-the-road truck driver, suffered several injuries when
he fell while tightening the packing on a pumping mechanism in his
truck. At the time of the injury, claimant was making a delivery for
defendant, a company engaged in the business of delivering freight for
various customers. Claimant and defendant had entered into an "Equipment
Lease Agreement Between Independent Contractor and Carrier." The lease
referred to claimant as an independent contractor. Under the terms of
the agreement, claimant leased his tractor to defendant, giving it
"exclusive possession, control, and use for the limited purpose of
complying with state and federal transportation law." Claimant paid all
the costs of operating the equipment including fuel, mileage, taxes and
maintenance costs along with the costs of Workers’ Compensation
insurance, unemployment insurance, Social Security and payroll tax
deductions. Defendant provided insurance to claimant; however, the cost
of such insurance was charged to claimant monthly at the actual cost for
the policy in effect. Claimant testified that he owned his own
semi-tractor, while defendant owned the trailers.
In a decision summarized at 7ILWCLB 1065, the Commission found claimant
failed to provide an employment relationship between himself and
defendant. The Circuit Court of Cook County confirmed the decision of
the Commission.
The Appellate Court 1st-District reversed, finding that a
majority of the factors to be considered in making this determination,
including the two most important ones- right to control the actions of
the employee and the nature of the work performed by the employee in
relation to the general business of the employer-indicated claimant was
an employee. The court found defendant exercised substantial control
over claimant’s activities, for it required him to inspect his assigned
tank trailer prior to starting a trip, it forbade him from carrying
passengers and it instructed him regarding the type of fuel to buy,
where to park and how to inspect and maintain equipment he needed, where
he was going and what time to be there. Defendant required him to attend
safety meetings, wear a uniform, shave and display a certain logo on his
tractor. The court determined that this extensive list of circumstances
where defendant would direct claimant’s behavior, coupled with
claimant’s compliance, was strong evidence that defendant had the right
to control claimant’s activities. Furthermore, the court explained that
the fact defendant’s actions were often directed at ensuring compliance,
with federal regulations did not diminish the finding that it exercised
control over claimant.
As for the relative nature of claimant’s work in relation to the general
nature of defendant’s business, the court noted that defendant’s
business was hauling freight for various customers. Accordingly,
defendant’s work was intimately related to defendant’s business.
Other factors favoring an employment relationship included defendant’s
broad right to terminate the lease agreement immediately or with 30 days
notice, defendant’s requirement that claimant wear a uniform and
claimant’s long, continuous and exclusive relationship with defendant.
The court noted that only four factors pointed toward an independent
contractor relationship; the lease the parties operated under referred
to claimant as an independent contractor; defendant did no withhold
income tax; claimant purchased occupational accident insurance on his
own; and claimant received a set percentage of the gross revenue from
each load he hauled. The court noted that the first three of these
factors carried little weight.
