Manager's Control at Jobsite Shows 'Contractor' Label was 'Sham'

Glendale Heights, IL (WorkersCompenstaion.Com)—Just because a worker signs a contract that labels him “independent contractor” doesn’t mean he is one.

As illustrated by a case involving a company that hired a man to clean gutters, it’s often what actually happens out in the field that dictates whether a worker is an independent contractor, or a full fledged employee able to seek worker’s compensation benefits.

In Routine Maintenance v. Illinois Worker’s Compensation Comm’n, No 1-21-1433WC (Ill. App. Ct. 10/07/22), a former brick worker needed to pay his bills. So, he answered an ad placed by a company called Routine Maintenance. The company was looking for people to work on clearing out gutters. The worker signed a contract with the company indicating he was an “independent contractor.”

While on a ladder at the jobsite, the worker slipped and fell 30 feet, seriously injuring himself. The worker’s compensation commission and trial court ruled that he was an employee of the company, and therefore entitled to worker’s compensation benefits.

The company appealed, claiming the worker was merely an independent contractor.

The court stated that, in Illinois, to determine whether an individual is an employee of a company, a court considers:

The single most important factor to consider, however, the court stated, is whether the purported employer has a right to control the worker's actions.

The court conceded that the worker’s contract stated that he was an independent contractor. But such labels are not controlling, the court remarked. In fact, “The classification of independent contractor … seemed to be ‘merely a sham label,’" the court wrote. And, as the worker himself observed, what actually happened out in the field was quite different.

The court focused on the fact that while the worker was on the job, the company’s office manager was largely in control of the worker’s activities. The court noted that the manager directed the worker and his fellow laborers to meet at the office at a particular time and to load up the company truck in which they would all ride together to the job site.

Further, once at the job site, the manager directed the workers where to start, announced who was assigned to do what duties, and told them in what order the buildings would be completed. He also directed the workers to labor on despite the windy weather conditions, the court observed.

“[The worker] testified [the office manager] remained at the job site and was overseeing the work. In fact, [he] was there to see [the worker] fall,” the court wrote.

In determining that the worker was an employee, the court reasoned that the company, through the office manager:

• Controlled the manner in which the worker performed the work;
• Dictated the worker’s schedule;
• Supervised the worker at the job site;
• Provided transportation and equipment; and
• Hired the worker to perform maintenance duties consistent with the nature of the business.

The court affirmed the decision of the worker’s compensation commission.

Get full-text opinions, statutes, regulations, the latest compliance info, and more from 53 U.S. jurisdictions, including Illinois, on WorkCompResearch.

Share This Article: