Vermont Securities v. Vermont Unemployment Compensation Commission
| Decision Date | 04 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 1816,1816 |
| Citation | 118 Vt. 196,104 A.2d 915 |
| Parties | VERMONT SECURITIES, Inc. v. VERMONT UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Gannett & Oakes, Brattleboro, for plaintiff.
F. Elliott Barber, Jr., Atty. Gen., Raymond S. Fitzpatrick, Barre, for defendant.
Before SHERBURNE, C. J., JEFFORDS, ADAMS and CHASE, JJ., and SYLVESTER, Superior Judge.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the Unemployment Compensation Commission denying the petitioner's claim for a refund, under the provisions of V.S.1947, § 5372, of the contributions paid by it to such commission during the period from January 1, 1949, to December 30, 1951. The facts found by the commission, and the additional facts which it is agreed may be treated as found, have been placed in the record by the stipulation of the parties, and it is agreed that the conclusions of the commission may be treated as based upon the facts found together with such additional facts. The stipulation also lists certain exceptions to the findings, to the failure to find and to the conclusions of law made by the commission, which it is agreed may be treated as having been seasonably taken by the petitioner, and which were allowed after this petition was brought. Our disposition of the questions raised should not be taken as indorsing this method of bringing the cause here.
So far as here meterial the facts set forth in the stipulation may be summarized as follows: The petitioner is a Vermont corporation engaged in buying and selling bonds, stocks and securities on its own account as a broker. It operates in Vermont Massachusetts and New Hampshire and is subject to the securities laws of those states and of the Federal government. During the period in question it employed from five to seven salesmen under an oral agreement which either the petitioner or salesman had the right to terminate at any time. The petitioner is registered with the department of banking and insurance as a broker and the authority from this department to each salesman to sell securities is in the form of a license which sets out that he is licensed to act as salesman for the petitioner. All licenses are procured and paid for by the petitioner. The salesmen are paid on a straight commission basis of $60% of the commission on sales collected by the petitioner. Commission payments are made periodically by it to the salesmen. The agreement contemplates that the salesmen will each in his own name as representing the petitioner contact prospective customers and attempt to interest them in the purchase, and sometimes the exchange of securities. They are asked to conduct themselves and work for the best interests of the petitioner. They may not sell securities for other firms. Their customers constitute their friends, and anyone they think has money to invest. The salesmen contact them where they may be found, but not at the petitioner's offices with but few exceptions and these only by chance. Only two or three have drawing accounts. They operate from their own offices or homes, where they may or may not have what can properly be called offices. They own the equipment which they use in selling securities and pay their own expenses. They are not required to work regularly; in fact, two of them are engaged in other business activity with the knowledge of the petitioner, but the nature of such activity is not disclosed. The number of orders a salesman takes is largely dependent on the amount of his effort, his acquaintance and selling ability. They are not restricted as to territory in the states in which they are licensed, but the petitioner suggests that they do not call on each other's customers. They do not and cannot have assistants due to the requirements of the licensing law. There are no restrictions on what a salesman may do after leaving the petitioner. If a salesman stops working for it he will try to take his own customers with him. Before becoming associated with the petitioner some of the salesmen were employed as salesmen and one had sold securities for another company. The license of a previous salesman was not renewed by the petitioners because of complaints received. The petitioner furnishes its salesmen with material and supplies at a cost of not over $100 per year, including lists of suggested securities. In some cases the suggestions as to the securities to be sold are followed by the salesmen and sometimes not. From time to time some investment firms, like the Putnam Fund, pay for advertisements of their securities in which the names of the petitioner and its salesmen have been listed. Salesmen have for some time individually ordered prospectuses from the various firms with which the petitioner has a contact. All sales are subject to confirmation by the petitioner for two reasons: (1) in order to be careful not to sell a security which has not been cleared for sale by law, and (2) in order to be able to make recommendations more beneficial to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daw's Critical Care Registry, Inc. v. Department of Labor, Employment Sec. Div., s. CV-88-029573
...or business was established independently of the "employer" (Daws). See, e.g., Vermont Securities, Inc. v. Vermont Unemployment Compensation Commission, 118 Vt. 196, 201, 104 A.2d 915 (1956). Moreover, such "independently established activity" must be one in which the "employee" is "customa......
-
FLEECE ON EARTH v. DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, 05-367.
...at 847; see also Bluto v. Dep't of Employment Sec., 135 Vt. 205, 208, 373 A.2d 518, 520 (1977); Vt. Sec., Inc. v. Vt. Unemployment Compensation Comm'n, 118 Vt. 196, 200, 104 A.2d 915, 917 (1954). The essence of the distinction at common law has always been the right to control the details o......
-
State, Emp. Sec. v. Reliable Health Care
...that the term professionals include those workers who are licensed and educated); see also Vermont Securities, Inc. v. Vermont Unemployment Comm'n, 118 Vt. 196, 104 A.2d 915, 917 (1954) (holding that one engaged in an independently established profession "has a proprietary interest to the e......
-
Standard Chemical Mfg. Co. v. Employment Sec. Division of Montana State Dept. of Labor and Industry
...to engage in an independent activity without any hindrance from any individual whatsoever. Vermont Securities, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Comm'n (1954), 118 Vt. 196, 201, 104 A.2d 915, 917; Bluto v. Dep't of Employment Sec. (1977), 135 Vt. 205, 373 A.2d 518, 521. In Maine, an "indepe......