Sound Cities Gas & Oil Co., Inc. v. Ryan
Decision Date | 05 May 1942 |
Docket Number | 28380. |
Citation | 13 Wn.2d 457,125 P.2d 246 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | SOUND CITIES GAS & OIL CO., Inc., v. RYAN, Sup'r, et al. |
Action by Sound Cities Gas & Oil Company, Incorporated, against Frank Ryan. Supervisor, Jack E. Bates, Commissioner, and the State of Washington, for a refund of unemployment compensation taxes on commissions of salesmen selling capital stock of plaintiff, wherein defendants cross-complained to prevent plaintiff from questioning status of salesman drawing benefits. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Reversed with direction to dismiss.
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; John M. Wilson, Judge.
Smith Troy and William J. Millard, Jr., both of Olympia, for appellants.
Peyser & Bailey and John D. Cartano, all of Seattle, amici curiae.
Little Leader, LeSourd & Palmer, of Seattle, for respondent.
This action was instituted to secure a refund of unemployment compensation taxes paid to the state for the years 1937 and 1938 on commissions of salesmen selling the capital stock of plaintiff corporation.
It was alleged in the complaint that certain payments of taxes for unemployment compensation had been paid to the state of Washington upon commissions paid to the salesmen who were selling stock of the corporation; that other taxes, yet unpaid, had been assessed for the same purpose; that the tax was illegally collected and assessed for the reason that the salesmen were not employees of plaintiff corporation.
It was further alleged that on or about March 22, 1940, there was a hearing Before the commissioner of unemployment compensation to determine whether the salesmen were employees or independent contractors, and that, as a result of the hearing, the commissioner made findings of fact and a written decision that the salesmen were employees of plaintiff corporation.
The amended answer and cross-complaint filed by defendant alleged that certain allowances for benefits had been made to salesmen who were working for the plaintiff corporation; that the plaintiff had been advised of the determination and allowance; that no request for rehearing or protest was ever filed; and that plaintiff was thereby precluded from raising any question as to the status of the salesmen and paying to them the benefits.
The case was tried to the court and a judgment entered which determined that plaintiff should recover a refund of all money paid on account of unemployment compensation taxes for the years 1937 and 1938, except the amounts which had been paid to the salesmen on account of their unemployment, and that the unpaid charges should be canceled. The state has appealed.
Appellant makes the following assignments of error that the court erred in substituting its discretion for that of the commissioner of unemployment compensation and placement; in holding the stock salesmen of respondent to be independent contractors in holding that the former administrative determination was not res judicata of the question of the status of respondent's stock salesman; and in entering judgment for plaintiff.
The facts are: Respondent corporation is engaged in conducting drilling operations for the discovery of gas and oil. It is also extensively engaged in selling to the public shares of its capital stock for the purpose of raising funds to finance its operations. It employs a large number of salesmen to sell its stock, and these salesmen work upon a commission basis.
March 22, 1940, a hearing was had Before Frank Ryan, supervisor of the division of unemployment compensation, the purpose of which was to ascertain whether or not respondent's salesmen were employees or independent contractors, and to have refunded the payments already made.
Testimony taken at the hearing developed the following facts: No written contract is entered into between respondent and its salesmen. The prospective salesman fills out an application containing his name, address, experience, and references, and then makes application to the state department of licenses for an agent's license for which he pays a five dollar fee. He also pays the cost of renewal. The application form, prescribed by the state department of licenses, requires an endorsement by respondent appointing the salesman as its agent to represent and act for it in negotiating for the sale of the stock. The salesman is then given a letter by respondent showing he has a state license. When the salesman starts work, he is furnished with information concerning respondent's business which will enable him to inform prospective purchasers of the stock. The information consists principally of a prospectus of the company and other printed items contained in a kit given to each salesman. The salesman operates entirely on his own capital. He is told that there is only one rule and that is to tell the truth and follow the prospectus of the company, and that the stock is a speculation and not an investment. There is no definite period of employment and the relationship may be terminated at any time. No requirement of any particular volume of sales is made in order for the salesman to remain as an agent of the company, or that the salesman shall devote all or any portion of his time to the business of selling stock The salesman may sell stock any place in the state of Washington, but may not sell outside of the limits of the state, nor is he allowed to make sales through the mail. Once each week a meeting is held at the office of the company to which the salesmen, are asked, but not required, to attend. About twenty-five per cent of the salesmen attend the meetings. Orders for stock are taken on subscription blanks furnished by respondent. The subscriptions are not valid until accepted by some officer of respondent. The salesman is paid strictly on a commission basis of twenty per cent of the money actually received by the respondent from his sales of respondent's stock. He has no drawing account and must pay all of his own expenses. Respondent furnishes blank business cards to the salesman, but he must place his own name thereon. He is only permitted to use the company's telephone for local calls.
If the salesmen employ others to work for them, respondent is not notified or informed of that fact. When prospects come into respondent's office desiring to buy stock, and they have not been brought in by a salesman for that purpose, they are sold the stock by regular employees of respondent.
Based upon the facts which we have just related, the supervisor made the following findings of fact and conclusion, and recommended their adoption by the commissioner: 'Findings of Fact
'(1) Sound Cities Gas & Oil Company, Inc., is a corporation organized and operating in the State of Washington for the purpose of locating and developing oil or gas-producing wells and in selling stock to finance these operations.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henry Broderick, Inc. v. Riley, 29431.
...(Italics ours.) This case was decided Nov. 24, 1942. It distinguishes the Washington Recorder case, supra, and refers to Sound Cities Gas & Oil Co. v. Ryan, supra, and v. Bates, supra. As applied to the instant case, the first question to be considered would be whether or not, under the fac......
-
Swanson Hay Co. v. State
...within the purview of the unemployment compensation act by a definition more inclusive than that of master and servant." 13 Wash.2d 457, 464-65, 125 P.2d 246 (1942) (quoting McDermott v. State , 196 Wash. 261, 266, 82 P.2d 568 (1938) ).¶ 60 Within a matter of three years, however, in Henry ......
-
State ex rel. Mulhausen v. Superior Court for Thurston County
... ... the case of Washington Recorder Publishing Co. v ... Ernst, 199 Wash. 176, 91 P.2d 718, 124 ... In re Foy, 10 Wash.2d 317, 116 P.2d 545; ... Sound [22 Wn.2d 816] Cities Gas & Oil Co. v. Ryan, 13 Wash.2d ... Inc., v. Riley, Wash., 157 P.2d 954, and Curtis v ... ...
-
Swanson Hay Co. v. State, 34566-1-III
...within the purview of the unemployment compensation act by a definition more inclusive than that of master and servant."13 Wn.2d 457, 464-65, 125 P.2d 246 (1942) (quoting McDermott v. State, 196 Wash. 261, 266, 82 P.2d 568 (1938)). Within a matter of three years, however, in Henry Broderick......