Below are how the secondary factors are applied to our case, Cesar Bailey v. PPI.
The first factor in determining control, is whether PPI has the right to discharge Cesar Bailey at will. “The support of an employment relationship is the right to discharge at will, without cause.” In Beaumount-Jacques, “The right to terminate their arrangement was a mutual one.”(Beamount) The court found that the decision of a mutual termination pointed to an Independent contractor, rather than an employment relationship. PPI and Cesar signed an agreement that stated Either PPI or Bailey could terminate the agreement at any time within a 45 day notice. Which indicates Cesar to be an independent contractor.
However, in Angelotti, “Second Mate retained the …show more content…
“The modern tendency is to find employment when the work being done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer, and when the worker relative to the employer does not furnish an indent business or professional service”(Borello) The court found Borello responsible because he was in the agricultural business, his business was to harvest crops, and the workers performed all meaningful aspects of that business. Borello’s business didn’t change with the workers, they followed the regular business model. PPI’s regular business model is connecting pet owners looking for assistance with their pets. PPI is strictly a pet related company, a Pamperer performs only pet related tasks. Pamperers work though season by nature, was permanent in PPI’s business. Since Cesar was performing services engaged in PPI’s distinct business and the work was a regular part of PPI’s business, PPI retains control of these …show more content…
“Second Mate hired Angelotti on a weekly basis, the duration of work was substantial, and Angelotti was paid by time rather than by job”(Angelotti) The court found that these factors helped support the existence on an employment relationship. A Pamperer schedule could range from only a few hours of work, to working on a regular basis. Cesar had been working for PPI for 6 months, which is not a substantial amount of time. After the job is complete a client would pay the Pamperer directly, but again the prices were set by PPI. Since Cesar’s work schedule fluctuated, the duration of work was not substantial, and he was paid by job rather than time, Cesar has more control of these
The first factor in determining control, is whether PPI has the right to discharge Cesar Bailey at will. “The support of an employment relationship is the right to discharge at will, without cause.” In Beaumount-Jacques, “The right to terminate their arrangement was a mutual one.”(Beamount) The court found that the decision of a mutual termination pointed to an Independent contractor, rather than an employment relationship. PPI and Cesar signed an agreement that stated Either PPI or Bailey could terminate the agreement at any time within a 45 day notice. Which indicates Cesar to be an independent contractor.
However, in Angelotti, “Second Mate retained the …show more content…
“The modern tendency is to find employment when the work being done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer, and when the worker relative to the employer does not furnish an indent business or professional service”(Borello) The court found Borello responsible because he was in the agricultural business, his business was to harvest crops, and the workers performed all meaningful aspects of that business. Borello’s business didn’t change with the workers, they followed the regular business model. PPI’s regular business model is connecting pet owners looking for assistance with their pets. PPI is strictly a pet related company, a Pamperer performs only pet related tasks. Pamperers work though season by nature, was permanent in PPI’s business. Since Cesar was performing services engaged in PPI’s distinct business and the work was a regular part of PPI’s business, PPI retains control of these …show more content…
“Second Mate hired Angelotti on a weekly basis, the duration of work was substantial, and Angelotti was paid by time rather than by job”(Angelotti) The court found that these factors helped support the existence on an employment relationship. A Pamperer schedule could range from only a few hours of work, to working on a regular basis. Cesar had been working for PPI for 6 months, which is not a substantial amount of time. After the job is complete a client would pay the Pamperer directly, but again the prices were set by PPI. Since Cesar’s work schedule fluctuated, the duration of work was not substantial, and he was paid by job rather than time, Cesar has more control of these