- 11 -
performed his work. Manulife set petitioner’s sales commission
schedule, his sales territory, and his annual reimbursement
allocation. Moreover, Manulife restricted petitioner’s ability
to sell or promote other company’s financial products without
Manulife’s consent and required petitioner to use preapproved
financial information packets to market Manulife’s life insurance
products. In addition, Manulife required petitioner to use the
Irvine office to conduct business and to use Manulife’s support
staff to assist him in his sales activities. These facts suggest
that Manulife generally retained the right to regulate and direct
petitioner’s business activities.
We give little or no weight to the fact that the agreement
merely required petitioner to adhere to Manulife’s policies,
procedures, written rules, and codes of conduct and that Manulife
required petitioner to report his goals and objectives to the
western regional manager because the record does not identify the
procedures for enforcement of the rules and for reporting
requirements.
The totality of the evidence on this factor supports a
finding that Manulife had the right to control the manner in
which petitioner performed his work and that petitioner therefore
was an employee of Manulife.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011