- 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 that
Page: 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