- 12 -
(6) Exley’s employment relationship was permanent; and (7) Exley
and petitioner believed they were creating an employer-employee
relationship. In discussing the factors enumerated above, and in
particular the factor regarding whether petitioner and Exley
believed they were creating an employer-employee relationship,
respondent contends that the “fact that Eleanor Naylor did not
intend that Virginia Exley be treated as an employee should not
be given effect when common law factors compel a finding that an
employee-employer relationship exists.” We agree with
respondent.
In its reply brief, petitioner admits: (1) A. Pavlik had
the right to control how Exley performed her services, including
assigning work to Exley, reviewing her work, approving the hours
that she worked, and setting her salary; (2) the corporation’s
facilities were used by A. Pavlik to provide Exley with equipment
and supplies; (3) Exley had no opportunity for profit or loss;
(4) A. Pavlik had the right to discharge Exley; and (5) Exley’s
employment relationship was permanent. Petitioner disputes,
however, that Exley’s work was a part of petitioner’s regular
business and that Exley and petitioner believed they were
creating an employer-employee relationship.
With respect to petitioner’s claim that Exley’s work was not
part of petitioner’s business, A. Pavlik and D. Pavlik testified
without contradiction that Exley worked in petitioner’s sales
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011