Hasco Mfg. Co. v. Maine Employment Sec. Commission
Decision Date | 19 November 1962 |
Parties | HASCO MANUFACTURING CO. v. MAINE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Walter E. Foss, Jr., Portland, for plaintiff.
Frank A. Farrington, Milton L. Bradford, Asst. Attys. Gen., Employment Security Commission, Augusta, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN, DUBORD and SIDDALL, JJ.
This case arising under the Maine Employment Security Law is before us on appeal from the decision of the Superior Court sustaining on review the action of the Employment Security Commission. R.S. c. 29, § 5, XIV. The issue is whether the services of certain individuals selling products of the appellant Hasco Manufacturing Company (for convenience herein called 'Hasco') constituted 'employment' under the statute. If so, the individuals were 'employees,' and not dealers or independent contractors as contended by Hasco, and their earnings were subject to contribution to the unemployment compensation fund.
Three points of appeal are designated: namely, that the decision is (1) against the law, (2) against the evidence, and (3) manifestly against the weight of the evidence. We are not concerned with points (2) and (3), which are applicable in the review of a jury verdict. In the instant case the findings of the Court are 'not to be set aside unless clearly erroneous.' Maine Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a). Under point (1) we have before us the application of the statute properly construed to the facts found within the 'clearly erroneous' test.
The pertinent provisions of the Employment Security Law (R.S. c. 29) are:
'Sec. 3, XIX.
"Wages' means all remuneration for personal services, including commissions and bonuses and the cash value of all remuneration in any medium other than cash.'
'Sec. 3, XI, E, (commonly known as the 'ABC' test.)
'Services performed by an individual for remuneration shall be deemed to be employment subject to the provisions of this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the commission that:
The burden rested upon Hasco to establish exemption by meeting to conditions in (1), (2), and (3) of paragraph E. It is well established that the three conditions must be met. To satisfy one or two, and not all three, leaves the relationship for purposes of the Act one of 'employment.' Schomp et al. v. Fuller Brush Co., 124 N.J.L. 487, 12 A.2d 702, aff. 126 N.J.L. 368, 19 A.2d 780; Ross v. Cummins, 7 Ill.2d 595, 131 N.E.2d 521; State v. Stevens, 116 Vt. 394, 77 A.2d 844.
The common law rules relating to master and servant do not govern the meaning of the statutes. As the Vermont Court said, in construing like provisions:
State v. Stevens, supra, 77 A.2d at p. 847.
The findings of the presiding justice in the Superior Court set forth below are fully supported by evidence.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boston Bicycle Couriers v. Director of Det
...of Employment Security, 198 Ill.2d 380, 397-398, 261 Ill.Dec. 302, 763 N.E.2d 272 (2001); Hasco Mfg. Co. v. Maine Employment Security Commn., 158 Me. 413, 414-415, 418-419, 185 A.2d 442 (1962); Koontz Aviation, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commn., 650 S.W.2d 331, 332, 334 (Mo.App.......
-
Sinclair Builders, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, Docket No. Han–13–10.
...one or two, and not all three, leaves the relationship for purposes of the Act one of ‘employment.’ ” Hasco Mfg. Co. v. Me. Emp't Sec. Comm'n, 158 Me. 413, 415, 185 A.2d 442 (1962). The Commission correctly determined that Sinclair met its burden of showing that all of the individuals on th......
-
Standard Chemical Mfg. Co. v. Employment Sec. Division of Montana State Dept. of Labor and Industry
...has a proprietary interest to the extent that he could operate without hindrance from any source. Hasco Manufacturing Co. v. Maine Employ. Sec. Comm'n (1962), 158 Me. 413, 185 A.2d 442, 445; Fournier v. Maine Employ. Sec. Comm'n (1965), 161 Me. 48, 206 A.2d 925, 926. Illinois also adopts th......
-
South Dakota Dept. of Labor v. Tri State Insulation Co.
...Hasco and the individual beyond recognition. See Murphy v. Daumit, 387 Ill. 406, 56 N.E.2d 800. Hasco Manufacturing Co. v. Maine Employ. Sec. Com'n, 158 Me. 413, 185 A.2d 442, 445 (1962). In Standard Chem. Mfg. Co. v. Employment Sec., 605 P.2d 610 (Mont.1980), the Supreme Court of Montana w......