Loomis Cabinet Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Com'n, 92-70540
Decision Date | 23 March 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 92-70540,92-70540 |
Parties | 16 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1680, 1994 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 30,379 LOOMIS CABINET COMPANY, Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, and Lynn Martin, Secretary of Labor, Respondents. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Bruce B. Alexander, Sacramento, CA, for petitioner.
Terri P. De Leon, Atty., Barbara Werthman, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Sol., Washington, DC, for respondents.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
The request for publication is GRANTED. The memorandum disposition filed January 25, 1994 is redesignated as an authored opinion by Judge Goodwin.
Petition to Review a Decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
Loomis Cabinet Company ("Loomis") petitions for review of a decision by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission ("OSHRC" or "the Commission"). The Commission concluded that an employment relationship did in fact exist between Loomis and the partners of Eastview Cabinet Company ("Eastview"), and affirmed the assessment of penalties against Loomis by the Secretary of Labor for certain violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 651-678 ("OSHA" or "the Act"). We affirm.
Michael Loomis owns Loomis Cabinet Company, which manufactures wood cabinets for installation in tract housing. On January 5, 1988, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspected the Loomis workshop. Two months later the Agency issued one citation alleging nine serious violations and a second citation alleging nine other-than-serious violations of workplace safety standards promulgated under OSHA. The Agency set abatement dates ranging from March 3 through March 31, 1988.
Until two days before the March 3rd abatement date, Loomis employed from 12 to 15 workers. Thereafter, the employees of Loomis formed a partnership named Eastview Cabinet Company, which entered into a contract to manufacture cabinets exclusively for Loomis in exchange for 75 percent of the net profit from the cabinets' sale.
In July 1988, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration attempted a second inspection of Loomis' workshop. The company initially objected and refused entry on the grounds that it had no employees and was therefore not subject to OSHA jurisdiction. Loomis later consented to the inspection and was issued a notification of failure to abate alleged violations, a citation for repeated violations, and a citation for an other-than-serious violation. Loomis contested these citations by letter, dated August 24, 1988, arguing that it was not an employer.
An administrative law judge ("ALJ") of the OSHRC conducted a hearing on April 24, 1989 and affirmed each of the citations and the total penalty proposed by the government. Subsequently, Loomis petitioned for review of the ALJ's decision by the entire Commission. The Commission granted review and found that the workers in question were employees under the Act. The Commission assessed a penalty of $43,900 against Loomis.
We must uphold a decision of the OSHRC unless it is arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with the law, or in excess of the authority granted by OSHA. Brock v. Bechtel Power Corp., 803 F.2d 999, 1000 (9th Cir.1986). We review the Commission's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard; and we accept reasonable factual inferences drawn by the Commission. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. OSHRC, 725 F.2d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir.1984). We must uphold the factfinder's determinations if the record contains such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if it is possible to draw different conclusions from the evidence. Landes Const. Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir.1987).
Loomis first argues that the Commission erred in finding that an employment relationship existed between Loomis and the partners of Eastview.
The Act circularly defines "employee" as "an employee of an employer who is employed in a business of his employer which affects commerce." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 652(6). The Supreme Court has assisted with this kind of definition by holding that where a statute contains no other provision that either gives specific guidance to the meaning of the term "employee" or suggests that the common law definition is inappropriate, we must presume that Congress intended to incorporate traditional principles of agency law. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Darden, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992) ( ).
We have held that whether an employment relationship exists depends upon the economic realities of the situation. Lutcher v. Musicians Union Local 47, 633 F.2d 880, 883 (9th Cir.1980) ( ); see also Donovan v. DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., 757 F.2d 1376 (3d Cir.1985) ( ); Usery v. Pilgrim Equipment Co., Inc., 527 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir.1976) ( ); Van Buren-Madawaska Corp., 13 O.S.H.Rep. (BNA) 2157, 2158 (1989) (economic realities test used to determine existence of employment relationship under OSHA); but see Clarkson Const. Co. v. OSHRC, 531 F.2d 451 (10th Cir.1976) ( ).
The Supreme Court in Darden set out the factors we should consider in determining whether a common law employment relationship exists:
In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.
Darden, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1348 (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751-752, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 2178-79, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989)). Here, the Commission used the economic realities test set forth in Griffen & Brand of McAllen, Inc., 6 O.S.H.Rep. (BNA) 1702, 1703 (1978), but determined that the result would be the same under the Darden test. Loomis Cabinet Co., OSHRC No. 88-2012, at 6 n. 9. We agree.
The common law test set forth in Darden is a nonexhaustive list of factors and contains " 'no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the answer, ... all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive.' " Darden, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1349 (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254, 258, 88 S.Ct. 988, 991, 19 L.Ed.2d 1083 (1968)). The central inquiry is: who controls the work environment?
In determining whether an employment relationship exists, the label of "partner" is meaningless. The economic realities test emphasizes the substance over the form of the relationship between the alleged employer and the hired party. Cf. Castillo v. Givens, 704 F.2d 181, 188-193 (5th Cir.198...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herman v. Tidewater Pacific, Inc.
......v. . TIDEWATER PACIFIC, INC.; Occupational Safety & Health . Review Commission, Respondents. ... of the authority granted by [the Act]." Loomis Cabinet Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health ......
-
Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Industries, Inc.
......v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, Respondents. ...Herman, 144 F.3d 861, 865 (D.C.Cir.1998); Loomis Cabinet Co. v. OSHRC, 20 F.3d 938, 941-42 (9th ......
-
U.S. v. Century Clinic, Inc.
...... that Defendants' petition (# 4) for review of final agency action is DENIED. . ...The purpose of an IDE is to protect the health and safety of human subjects exposed to ...5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Loomis Cabinet Co. v. OSHRC, 20 F.3d 938, 941 (9th ......
-
Atl. Envtl. Constr. Co. v. Malveaux
...... and Industry against AEC for two workplace safety violations. AEC argues that the circuit court ...” violations of the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Act, Code § 40.1–1 et seq. ...Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 623 F.2d 155, 158 (10th Cir.1980). “It ... principles consistent with the statute); Loomis... consistent with the statute); Loomis Cabinet......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...by safety regulations, could either correct a hazard itself or direct a subcontractor to abate a hazard); Loomis Cabinet Co. v. OSHRC, 20 F.3d 938, 942 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding owner of business liable to contractor's employee because it controlled working environment). But see United State......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...by safety regulations, could either correct a hazard itself or direct a subcontractor to abate a hazard); Loomis Cabinet Co. v. OSHRC, 20 F.3d 938, 942 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding owner of business liable to contractor's employee because it controlled working environment). But see United State......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...by safety regulations, could either correct a hazard itself or direct a subcontractor to abate a hazard); Loomis Cabinet Co. v. OSHRC, 20 F.3d 938, 942 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding owner of business liable to contractor's employee because it controlled working environment). But see IBP, Inc. v.......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...by safety regulations, could either correct a hazard itself or direct a subcontractor to abate a hazard); Loomis Cabinet Co. v. OSHRC, 20 F.3d 938, 942 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding owner of business liable to contractor's employee because it controlled working environment). But see IBP, Inc. v.......