Griffitts Const. Co., Inc. v. Department of Labor
| Decision Date | 20 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 50951,50951 |
| Citation | 28 Ill.Dec. 166,390 N.E.2d 333,76 Ill.2d 99 |
| Parties | , 28 Ill.Dec. 166 GRIFFITTS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Thomas R. Wetzler and Thomas F. Sonneborn, Springfield, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago (Joseph D. Keenan, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the appellate court in an action under the Unemployment Compensation Act (). The defendant Director of Labor ruled that plaintiff was an employing unit subject to the provisions of the Act insofar as the services of a certain salesman and canvassers are concerned. The circuit and appellate courts affirmed and we allowed plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal.
Plaintiff, Griffitts Construction Company, is in the home-improvement business. Much of its business is generated through the efforts of salesmen and canvassers, whose services during the first two quarters of 1965 are the basis of this litigation.
Pursuant to the request of plaintiff's accountant, a field agent of the Division of Unemployment Compensation conducted a review of plaintiff's records to determine whether plaintiff was liable to pay money into the unemployment compensation fund because of services performed by a certain salesman and canvassers. As a result of his examination of the records, the agent made a determination of liability in the amount of $181.54. Plaintiff agreed to make the payment immediately to stop the accrual of interest, but indicated that it would seek a refund.
On August 4, 1965, plaintiff filed a claim for refund with the defendant Director of Labor. The claim was denied. On December 4, 1965, plaintiff filed a protest and requested a hearing. The hearing was conducted on October 8, 1969, before Helen Peckler, a representative of the Director. In her report filed December 4, 1970, Ms. Peckler recommended that the Director's previous determination of liability be affirmed. Ms. Peckler's recommendation was based on her findings that the salesman and canvassers in question were employed by plaintiff within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Act and that the services of these individuals were not exempt as being those of an independent contractor (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 48, par. 322). Plaintiff filed objections, but the Director adopted Ms. Peckler's recommendation as his decision. Plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court of Sangamon County. That court affirmed, and plaintiff appealed to the appellate court, which also affirmed (58 Ill.App.3d 1114, 19 Ill.Dec. 202, 378 N.E.2d 817).
In this court, plaintiff asks us to rule that the services of the salesman and the canvassers are exempt from coverage under the Act. Plaintiff admits that the relationship between it and the salesman and canvassers constitutes "employment" within the meaning of the Act. That word is defined broadly as "any service * * * performed by an individual for an employing unit * * *." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 48, par. 316.) Plaintiff contends, however, that the services are exempt under section 212 of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 48, par. 322), the so-called "independent contractors" exemption. The section provides:
"Service performed by an individual for an employing unit, whether or not such individual employs others in connection with the performance of such services, shall be deemed to be employment unless and until it is proven in any proceeding where such issue is involved that
A. Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such services, both under his contract of service and in fact; and
B. Such service is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and
C. Such individual is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business. " Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 48, par. 322.
As prior cases have pointed out, this statutory definition supplants the common law concept of independent contractor, and because the conditions specified in section 212 are in the conjunctive, all three must be satisfied to entitle an employing unit to an exemption (A. George Miller, Inc. v. Murphy (1942), 379 Ill. 524, 527, 42 N.E.2d 78). Because the Act was passed with the public welfare in mind, construction of its provisions should favor inclusion, and there is a strict burden of proof placed upon one claiming an exemption (Grant Contracting Co. v. Murphy (1944), 387 Ill. 137, 143, 148, 56 N.E.2d 313). The inquiry should be directed at determining the actual rather than the alleged relationship of the employing unit and the person whose services are in question; designations and terminology used by the parties are not controlling (Murphy v. Daumit (1944), 387 Ill. 406, 415, 56 N.E.2d 800). Our task as a reviewing court is to determine whether the decision of the Director of Labor is against the manifest weight of the evidence or is not supported by evidence in the record. Mohler v. Department of Labor (1951), 409 Ill. 79, 85, 97 N.E.2d 762.
The report of the Director's representative, adopted by the Director as his decision, states that plaintiff has failed to prove that it has met any of the three conditions of section 212. The representative's findings are as follows:
"1. That the salesmen who performed services for the petitioner were not free from direction or control over the performance of such services.
2. That these salesmen performed services that were in the usual course of the business of the petitioner.
3. That these salesmen were not engaged in any independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.
4. That these salesmen were in the employment of petitioner.
5. That these salesmen hired canvassers with the implied or express consent of the petitioner.
6. That the canvassers were in the employment of petitioner."
Our review of the record convinces us that the Director's determination of liability should be affirmed, as we believe that the evidence in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AFM Messenger Serv. v. Dept. of Employment Security
...of Employment Security, 146 Ill.2d 61, 73, 165 Ill. Dec. 727, 585 N.E.2d 123 (1991); Griffitts Construction Co. v. Department of Labor, 76 Ill.2d 99, 104, 28 Ill.Dec. 166, 390 N.E.2d 333 (1979); Gladstone Cab Co. v. Donnelly, 30 Ill.2d 465, 474, 197 N.E.2d 3 (1964); Spahn v. Department of L......
-
Carpetland v. Dept. of Employment Security
...done, whether or not that control is exercised." 56 Ill. Adm.Code § 2732.200(g) (2001). In Griffitts Construction Co. v. Department of Labor, 76 Ill.2d 99, 28 Ill.Dec. 166, 390 N.E.2d 333 (1979), we agreed with the Director that the construction company had not met its burden of demonstrati......
-
Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw
...considered for the first time on administrative review. See 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 1994); Griffitts Construction Co. v. Department of Labor, 76 Ill.2d 99, 106, 28 Ill.Dec. 166, 390 N.E.2d 333 (1979). It is well-recognized that a litigant's right to question the validity of a statute is subj......
-
AFM Messenger Serv., Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, No. 1-98-4794
...between the parties, rather than the designations and terminology stated in the contracts. Griffitts Construction Co. v. Department of Labor, 76 Ill.2d 99, 104, 28 Ill.Dec. 166, 390 N.E.2d 333 (1979). In this regard, designations and terminology used in the contract are not controlling. Gri......