CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: When salespeople had no set hours, sales quotas or specific territory to cover, and are paid only on a commission and bonus basis, the salespeople are not under the “control or direction” of the employer and, hence, are not employees.
Wiggers v Olsen Seawall Construction Co Digest no. 17.08 Section 42 Cite as: Wiggers v Olsen Seawall Construction Co, unpublished opinion of the Muskegon Circuit Court, issued April 21, 1980 (No. 79-13578 AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: David Wiggers Employer: Olsen Seawall Construction Co. Docket no.: L77 6884 1537 Date of decision: April 21, 1980 View/download the full decision… Read More: Wiggers v Olsen Seawall Construction Co – 17.08 »
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a nurse-anesthetist declines employee status, signs a contract to provide services at a hospital as an independent contractor, and retains the right to perform services elsewhere, the doctrine of “economic reality” does not apply, and the claimant is an independent contractor.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where a truck owner-operator works almost exclusively for one company the claimant is an employee, even where the claimant considered himself or herself an independent contractor.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The court remanded because the Appeal Board incorrectly applied the “right to control test” rather than the statutory test. Also, the Board failed to make an explicit finding of whether the drivers followed a pattern of operation established by the employer and were controlled by employer in the performance of their work.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The economic reality test is to be used in unemployment compensation cases dealing with whether a person is an employee or independent contractor.
Nordman v Calhoun Digest no. 17.10 Section 42 Cite as: Nordman v Calhoun, 332 Mich 460 (1952). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Ardath Calhoun Employer: Charles E. Nordman d/b/a Top Notch Soda Bar Docket no.: BO 2905 12445 Date of decision: March 6, 1952 View/download the full decision SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Mr. Date Scofield was an employee under the… Read More: Nordman v Calhoun – 17.10 »