Home Insurance v. Industrial Commission

Citations: 123 Ariz. 352; 599 P.2d 805; 1978 Ariz. App. LEXIS 762Docket: Nos. 1 CA-IC 1779, 1 CA-IC 1783

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; September 12, 1978; Arizona; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Industrial Commission's consolidated special action addresses whether Ronald D. Conway was employed by Bestway Trucking Company and Richard N. Fischer at the time of his fatal accident. The hearing officer concluded that both Fischer and Bestway had the right to control Conway, establishing him as their employee, a finding the court affirms. In January 1976, Fischer leased his truck-tractor to Bestway, which managed freight deliveries using Fischer's vehicle. Conway died in a June 16, 1976, accident while operating a rig that combined Fischer's tractor and a Bestway trailer. A compensation claim was filed against both parties; however, Fischer failed to secure workmen's compensation insurance, leading to the claim being treated as "no insurance" for Fischer. 

During the January 4, 1977, hearing, Fischer indicated that assignments were made by either him or Bestway, with Conway having the option to refuse assignments. However, repeated refusals without valid reasons could result in termination. Fischer was compensated by Bestway per mile, and he paid Conway a lower rate based on a standard mileage guide, not actual distance. Fischer managed maintenance costs and expected notice from Conway regarding his employment status. Bestway's dispatcher, Dennis J. Myers, outlined how Conway received driving assignments directly from Bestway and was expected to complete deliveries in a reasonable timeframe. Mrs. Carole Sue Conway testified that her husband had ceased other employment to work exclusively for Fischer, affirming his role as their driver at the time of the accident. The hearing officer determined that Conway was indeed an employee of both Fischer and Bestway and categorized Fischer's relationship with Bestway as that of an independent contractor. On appeal, Bestway and Fischer argue the evidence did not support the hearing officer's findings regarding Conway's employment status, and Bestway contends that Fischer's independent contractor status should negate Conway's employment with them.

The determination of whether an individual is classified as an employee or an independent contractor hinges on the right to control the method of achieving a specific outcome. This is established through a comprehensive examination of the facts and circumstances of each case, without reliance on any single factor. Key considerations include the duration of employment, the employer's control over work details, who provides necessary tools, and whether the work is part of the employer's regular business activities.

In the case reviewed, evidence supported the conclusion that Conway was an employee of both Fischer and Bestway. Fischer treated Conway as his employee, using him exclusively as his driver and providing essential equipment, while Bestway controlled the logistics of Conway's work, including delivery assignments and routes. Bestway enforced adherence to established schedules and could terminate drivers for unsatisfactory performance. 

Despite Fischer being classified as an independent contractor, this did not preclude the finding of joint employment, as both Fischer and Bestway had the right to control Conway's work methods. Arizona workmen’s compensation law dictates that an employee may seek compensation from the employer under whose direction they were working at the time of injury. The precedent indicates that when multiple employers exercise control over a worker, a joint employment relationship can be established.

Joint employment is recognized as a common occurrence where two employers simultaneously exercise control and advance their interests in a single work task. An example is the arrangement between a lessor of a truck and a lessee who uses it for transporting goods, where both parties maintain sufficient control to fulfill their business purposes. Bestway argues, citing Blasdell v. Industrial Comm’n, that the Supreme Court has ruled against the possibility of dual employment in joint employment scenarios. However, in Blasdell, the Court determined that the Industrial Commission had incorrectly awarded benefits because the alleged employer lacked control over the injured worker's performance, without establishing a legal prohibition against multiple parties having control. The Supreme Court has consistently highlighted that the right to control an employee’s actions is what forms the employee-employer relationship. In this case, evidence indicates a joint employer-employee relationship among Conway, Bestway, and Fischer, as both Bestway and Fischer shared control over Conway’s work. Thus, the Industrial Commission's award is upheld, supported by the evidence presented. Judges Donofrio and Wren concur with this conclusion.