ARGUMENT
I. THE PETITIONER, IN THIS CASE, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF PLUS BUILDING, INC., AND NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Respondent claims that Petitioner Mr. Kroplewski was not an employee of Plus Building, Inc., but an independent contractor. Although there is no rigid rule of law to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists between parties, such determination depends on the particular facts of the case. The range of factors is considered in making that determination including the right to control the manner in which the work is done, the method of payment, the right to discharge, the skill required, and who provided the materials, tools, and equipment. Morgan Cab Co. V. Industrial Comm’n 93 Ill 2d 66, 71 (1982).
In the case at bar, Petitioner had no control at all over the manner in which he accomplished his work. He was told by his foreman exactly how the work was supposed to get done, and how he was supposed to accomplish each particular job. Every day Petitioner followed his foreman to a job site, and while there he was under his direct supervision and control. Respondent, in this case, provided all the materials, and tools that were used by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, in this case, had set hours, and was paid on an hourly basis by Plus Building, Inc. The Illinois Supreme Court in Roberson v Industrial Commission, 2007 WL 851594 (Ill Sup Ct) noted that no single factor determines whether a worker will be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court also noted that even a contract labeling a worker as an independent contractor is not dispositive of employment status, though it is one factor to be taken into account. In order to determine whether the Petitioner was an employee or an independent contractor, if we look at the individual facts of this case, they clearly show that Petitioner Mr. Kroplewski was an employee of Plus Building, Inc. Respondent classified Petitioner as an independent contractor, however, the Petitioner did not control his own schedule, Respondent paid the Petitioner on an hourly basis, Respondent could discharge the Petitioner at will, Responded provided all of the materials and tools, and most importantly Respondent controlled the manner in which the Petitioner worked. The evidence clearly shows that Respondent had control over Petitioner’s work, and the work performed by the Petitioner fell entirely within the scope of Petitioner’s Plus Building, Inc. business. Therefore, the Petitioner was clearly an employee under company direct control and was covered …show more content…
v. Bill’s Builders, Inc., there are no executed and signed documents between the parties that would demonstrate an intent on behalf of the Petitioner to be exempt from the operation of the Act. There is no insurance application signed by the Petitioner, as well as there is no evidence that would suggest the Petitioner ever discussed or was even aware of the effects of the policy exclusion. Unlike in Virginia Surety Co. v. Bill’s Builders, Inc., in this case, it was the first time Petitioner ever purchased workers' compensation insurance and was not aware of the effects of excluding himself from the workers' compensation insurance coverage. A corporate officer may withdraw from the protection of the Act by providing written notice, however, in this case, there is no signed insurance application, as well as there is no signed notice of the Petitioner withdrawing from the protection of the Act or the workers’ compensation insurance he
I. THE PETITIONER, IN THIS CASE, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF PLUS BUILDING, INC., AND NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Respondent claims that Petitioner Mr. Kroplewski was not an employee of Plus Building, Inc., but an independent contractor. Although there is no rigid rule of law to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists between parties, such determination depends on the particular facts of the case. The range of factors is considered in making that determination including the right to control the manner in which the work is done, the method of payment, the right to discharge, the skill required, and who provided the materials, tools, and equipment. Morgan Cab Co. V. Industrial Comm’n 93 Ill 2d 66, 71 (1982).
In the case at bar, Petitioner had no control at all over the manner in which he accomplished his work. He was told by his foreman exactly how the work was supposed to get done, and how he was supposed to accomplish each particular job. Every day Petitioner followed his foreman to a job site, and while there he was under his direct supervision and control. Respondent, in this case, provided all the materials, and tools that were used by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, in this case, had set hours, and was paid on an hourly basis by Plus Building, Inc. The Illinois Supreme Court in Roberson v Industrial Commission, 2007 WL 851594 (Ill Sup Ct) noted that no single factor determines whether a worker will be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court also noted that even a contract labeling a worker as an independent contractor is not dispositive of employment status, though it is one factor to be taken into account. In order to determine whether the Petitioner was an employee or an independent contractor, if we look at the individual facts of this case, they clearly show that Petitioner Mr. Kroplewski was an employee of Plus Building, Inc. Respondent classified Petitioner as an independent contractor, however, the Petitioner did not control his own schedule, Respondent paid the Petitioner on an hourly basis, Respondent could discharge the Petitioner at will, Responded provided all of the materials and tools, and most importantly Respondent controlled the manner in which the Petitioner worked. The evidence clearly shows that Respondent had control over Petitioner’s work, and the work performed by the Petitioner fell entirely within the scope of Petitioner’s Plus Building, Inc. business. Therefore, the Petitioner was clearly an employee under company direct control and was covered …show more content…
v. Bill’s Builders, Inc., there are no executed and signed documents between the parties that would demonstrate an intent on behalf of the Petitioner to be exempt from the operation of the Act. There is no insurance application signed by the Petitioner, as well as there is no evidence that would suggest the Petitioner ever discussed or was even aware of the effects of the policy exclusion. Unlike in Virginia Surety Co. v. Bill’s Builders, Inc., in this case, it was the first time Petitioner ever purchased workers' compensation insurance and was not aware of the effects of excluding himself from the workers' compensation insurance coverage. A corporate officer may withdraw from the protection of the Act by providing written notice, however, in this case, there is no signed insurance application, as well as there is no signed notice of the Petitioner withdrawing from the protection of the Act or the workers’ compensation insurance he