- 13 - a commission; (3) he illegally possessed a controlled substance or was drunk, dishonest, or guilty of gross misconduct or insubordination; (4) he “puts private label products on the bread table”; or (5) his performance is deemed unsatisfactory. However, IBC was required to meet with the union regarding the conduct and to notify the union if petitioner were suspended or discharged. Although the first, second, and fourth of the above-listed reasons for discharge appear to be unique to the type of work and union agreement, the third and fifth are broad categories of reasons for which IBC could have discharged petitioner. Those categories are of the type that may be associated with an employer-employee relationship. Even though the union contract provided the union’s right to be involved in the discharge process, that aspect does not diminish the fact that IBC could discharge petitioner for poor performance. Lastly, the record reflects that petitioner had little or no investment in facilities or equipment. The relationship between petitioner and IBC is, in substantial part, governed by the union agreement between petitioner’s union and IBC. The terms of the agreement provide for a relationship that is more akin to that of an employer- employee (common law) than that of a self-employed individual or an agent, as contended by petitioner. We therefore hold thatPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011