COM. DEPT. OF L. I. v. B.-L.-HAMILTON

Unemployment Compensation — Employe or independent contractor — "Wages" — Engineer performing services similar to those he previously performed as an employe — Evidence — Unemployment Compensation Law.

In this case, in which it appeared that the Bureau of Employment Security made an assessment against defendant for failure of defendant to include in its periodic reports "wages" paid to an employe, in which it appeared that the employe had been previously employed by defendant as a hydraulic engineer, until he was retired on pension; that about eight months later he was allegedly engaged by defendant as a "consultant" engineer to perform services similar to those previously performed by him; that claimant was employed because defendant had more specific jobs to be performed in a short period of time than could be done by defendant's regular staff; that the only terms discussed were the $50 per day payment, the lack of usual employe benefits, and the fact that claimant's duties would be similar to those in his previous employment; that claimant testified that he was expected to and did give a full day's work for his compensation; that the agreement did not require claimant to do his work in defendant's plant, but the very nature of the work required his presence at the plant for all practical purposes; that, although claimant was responsible to the department head, who had hired him, rather than to his immediate supervisor as theretofore, and was given only general instructions because of his knowledge of the work, he was not free to do as he pleased, but rather was expected to execute his tasks, in the same manner as he had done during his previous employment; and that the court below, finding that defendant had failed to show that the claimant was free from control or direction of his services or that claimant as to the services performed by him was customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business within the meaning of the exclusionary provisions of § 4(1)(2)(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, held that he was an employe of defendant and sustained the assessment; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.

Argued June 13, 1968.