Kirkwood v. Industrial Commission

Citations: 416 N.E.2d 1078; 84 Ill. 2d 14; 48 Ill. Dec. 556; 1981 Ill. LEXIS 227Docket: 53493

Court: Illinois Supreme Court; February 3, 1981; Illinois; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the Industrial Commission's determination that Herman J. Kirkwood was an independent contractor, not an employee, when he was injured while applying siding. Kirkwood had been contracted by Security Roofing and Siding Co. Inc. and was injured from a scaffold collapse. His compensation claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was denied by the arbitrator and the Industrial Commission, with the circuit court of Coles County upholding this decision. 

Kirkwood, who had experience in the siding business since 1970, previously operated a construction company with his brother and later joined a partnership before working independently with his son and friends. The crew negotiated project details directly with Security, which provided job specifications and materials but did not supervise the crew, who set their own hours and used their own equipment. They were paid on a piecework basis without tax withholdings, and their payments came from Security's general account rather than payroll. 

The court found the Industrial Commission's conclusion that Kirkwood was an independent contractor was supported by the evidence, thus rejecting Kirkwood's appeal that he was an employee entitled to compensation.

The claimant argues that their case is similar to Mastercraft Co. v. Industrial Com. and Kirkwood Brothers Construction v. Industrial Com., where the injured parties were deemed employees. Though the facts appear similar, key distinctions exist: the Industrial Commission in those cases determined the claimants were employees, while in the current case, the Commission's findings differ but are not deemed against the manifest weight of the evidence. The claimant’s role in Mastercraft involved the employer owning work equipment and supervising work, whereas in Kirkwood, the arrangement included oversight by a salesman who had additional responsibilities. The court acknowledges that the classification of an individual as an employee or independent contractor can be complex due to overlapping elements of both statuses. Thus, when facts can support either classification, the Commission is responsible for drawing inferences and assessing witness credibility, a process upheld by precedent in various cases.

A decision will only be reversed on review if it contradicts the manifest weight of the evidence, as established in several Illinois Supreme Court cases. The court assesses various factors to determine whether a worker is classified as an employee or an independent contractor, with a primary focus on the right to control the worker and the details of their work. The court's interpretations are binding on the Commission, which may lead to inconsistent outcomes in similar cases. Notably, the claimant, Herman Kirkwood, experiences differing classifications in two similar cases, raising concerns about fairness. Professor Larson critiques traditional common-law criteria for determining employee status in the context of workmen's compensation, arguing that the right to control should not be the main determinant. Instead, Larson emphasizes the importance of the nature of the claimant's work in relation to the employer's business. He posits that the costs of industrial accidents should be absorbed by consumers, suggesting that workers integral to the employer's operations should be protected under compensation laws. Larson further warns against relying solely on job classifications, as context is crucial in determining employer-employee relationships.

When engaging a lawyer, the relationship is not that of employer-employee unless the lawyer is continuously employed by a law firm or insurance company. The 'relative nature of the work' test assesses various factors: the character and skill level of the claimant's work, its independence, its expected accident risk, and its integration into the employer's regular operations, including the continuity and duration of the work. The court recognizes that while the right to control a worker's performance is crucial in determining employee status, the nature of the work in relation to the employer's business is also significant. Historical cases (e.g., Henry v. Industrial Com., Coontz v. Industrial Com.) support this dual consideration. The approach proposed by Professor Larson is viewed as potentially yielding more consistent results than traditional tort liability standards, which may lead to contradictory outcomes. Current criteria for distinguishing employees from independent contractors have been established through court rulings and have shaped business relationships and insurance practices. Abruptly changing these standards could disrupt established practices and expose employers to unforeseen liabilities. Consequently, the court affirms the judgment of the circuit court of Coles County, noting that Larson’s suggestions were neither presented nor argued, making it inappropriate to adopt them in this case. Justice Simon did not participate in the decision.