- 9 -
expected delivery time.14 The drivers carried beepers so that
petitioner could remain in contact while they were on the road.
Petitioner did not direct the routes drivers were to use in
either picking up or delivering loads.15 If a driver chose to
drive on a toll road, the driver was responsible for paying the
tolls.16 After a load was delivered, the driver could
immediately return to petitioner’s place of business with or
without a return load.17
D. Ohio Determination of Independent Contractor Status
On May 18, 1995, Richard Chatfield (Chatfield), one of
petitioner’s drivers, filed a claim with the Ohio Industrial
Commission (OIC) for workers’ compensation because of an injury
he suffered on May 2, 1995. By order dated October 25, 1995, the
Ohio Industrial Commission (OIC) disallowed Chatfield’s claim,
finding he was not an employee of petitioner on the date of
injury but an independent contractor who had failed to secure
14 The same information was provided to any owner-operator
who was offered, and accepted, an assignment to pick up and
transport a load.
15 However, the driver’s route was specified when Ohio
Transport obtained a special hauling permit to carry a load that
exceeded weight and/or width limitations.
16 Although the agreement stated petitioner would cover the
cost of toll roads, the parties stipulated that the drivers were
actually required to cover the costs of paying tolls.
17 Ordinarily, it was in petitioner’s and the driver’s best
interests for the driver to request petitioner to find a return
load.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007