- 62 -
and tools were not the instrumentalities and tools of TLC’s
business, viz., leasing driver-employees. After analysis based
on the facts and circumstances in the instant case, evidence that
each trucking company client, and not TLC, provided the trucking
business instrumentalities and tools did not assist the Court in
determining whether TLC or each trucking company client was the
employer of each driver-employee whom TLC leased to such trucking
company client. That is why the Court in Transport Labor I
found on the record presented to it that each trucking company
client’s owning or leasing the trucking business instrumen-
talities and tools used by each driver-employee whom it leased
from TLC was a neutral factor in determining whether TLC was the
employer of each driver-employee. Id. at 190. It is mere
speculation on the part of petitioner to assume that if the facts
in Beech Trucking Co. had been virtually the same as the facts in
the instant case, which they are not, the Court in Beech Trucking
Co. nevertheless would have found that Beech Trucking Company was
the employer of the truck drivers whom it leased from ATS because
Beech Trucking Company supplied the instrumentalities and tools
to those truck drivers.
Method of Payment
Petitioner asserts:
In addition, the Court here overlooked the
uncontradicted testimony of Kristi Schrupp, who
testified that the trucking company determined drivers’
salaries and that there was no time when TLC would make
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011