Barium & Chemicals, Inc. - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
               Petitioner argues that Exley was an employee of A. Pavlik              
          and not of petitioner.  To support this argument, petitioner                
          relies on Ohio law addressing the authority of directors of a               
          corporation to act on behalf of the corporation.  As a result,              
          petitioner argues that “the factors which are considered when a             
          determination is being made as to whether an individual is an               
          independent contractor or an employee are not involved”.                    
               Petitioner cites Campbell v. Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc.,             
          493 N.E.2d 239 (Ohio 1986), for the proposition that “the Supreme           
          Court of Ohio determined that an unauthorized employment contract           
          was not binding upon the corporation, unless the employment                 
          contract was impliedly ratified by the board of directors”.  In             
          Campbell v. Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc., supra at 242, the court           
          reaffirmed the rule that an unauthorized contract may be                    
          impliedly ratified where the directors have actual knowledge of             
          the facts and (1) accept and retain the benefits of the contract,           
          (2) acquiesce in it, or (3) fail to repudiate the contract within           
          a reasonable period of time.  Id.                                           
               Respondent argues that Exley was an employee of petitioner             
          because:  (1) Petitioner had the right to control how Exley                 
          performed the services; (2) petitioner invested in the work                 
          facilities used by Exley; (3) Exley had no opportunity for profit           
          or loss; (4) petitioner had the power to discharge Exley;                   
          (5) Exley’s work was part of petitioner’s regular business;                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011