- 22 -
prescribed appropriate dress for Petitioner. TIG specified how
its telephones, software, and company vehicles were to be used.”
Respondent also presented as evidence a “WRITTEN WARNING NOTICE”
from Mr. Rasmussen, petitioner’s supervisor, that reprimanded
petitioner for argumentative comments made during a “lunch-n-
learn” session with a vendor of TIG.
Petitioner contends that he set his own work hours and sales
territory, defined the manner in which he performed his tasks,
worked principally from home, and was not required to utilize
TIG’s support staff or attend routine meetings. Other than his
own testimony, petitioner did not provide any substantiation of
these facts.
The Court concludes that respondent has met his burden of
proof as to the degree of control that TIG exercised over
petitioner. The documentary evidence that respondent presented
indicates that TIG had the right to control, whether or not
exercised, how petitioner performed his work. This is
particularly exemplified by the “WRITTEN WARNING NOTICE” issued
by Mr. Rasmussen and the employment history it recites.
Accordingly, this “crucial” factor weighs in favor of employee
status.
2. Investment in Facilities
The fact that a worker provides his or her own tools, or
owns a vehicle that is utilized for work, is indicative of
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007