- 23 -
C. Opportunity For Profit or Loss
Hathaway ran the risk of incurring a loss as the result of
his sales activities. As explained supra, if a sales
representative incurred expenses to solicit sales and for some
reason the orders placed were unshippable, then the sales
representative would suffer a loss. TAG did not reimburse its
sales representatives for such losses. A TAG sales
representative also could suffer a loss as the result of
guaranteeing the credit of a customer who failed to make
payments.
This factor supports a finding that Hathaway was an
independent contractor, not an employee of TAG.
D. Permanency of the Relationship
Hathaway had been a TAG sales representative since 1969 and
was hired by TAG to work for an indefinite period of time. Most
of TAG's sales representatives had been with the company for over
20 years.
The permanency of the relationship between TAG and TAG's
sales representatives would support a finding that Hathaway was
an employee of TAG.
E. TAG's Right of Discharge
The relationship between Hathaway and TAG was terminable at
the will of either party. Some opinions regard this as an
indicator of employee status. However, it is not clear in the
context of the instant case that TAG would not have the same
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011