- 9 -
As in the March and Kaiser cases, the Department in this
case exercises control over off-duty jobs in that it has a
detailed approval process and the officer is always to abide by
the manual and code of ethics. However, the Court previously
found, and we so find again, that the incidental control held by
the police department relates solely to the on-duty employment
relationship, rather than to the details of the off-duty
relationship. Kaiser v. Commissioner, supra; March v.
Commissioner, supra. We find that the Department is looking
after its own interests in making sure that off-duty work does
not interfere with on-duty work, that the Department's image is
not tarnished, and that the Department knows where its officers
are located in case of an emergency.
Petitioner puts forth another argument for departmental
control stating that he has to report to other officers on his
off-duty jobs. However, we find that the coordination of the
off-duty jobs by other officers is not comparable to departmental
control. Rather, the use of a coordinating officer is merely an
administrative aid to all parties involved. It is easier for the
school district and the housing authority to converse with one
individual officer rather than a group of officers. The amount
of control held by the Department is not sufficient for us to
find that petitioner was engaged in off-duty employment as an
employee of the Department. In fact, the Department does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011