The judge found the cab company "exercised very little control over the means and manner of petitioner’s performance." He noted that although petitioner was required by the "Taxi Division to paint his vehicle silver and to place the name ‘Classic’" and the company's phone number on it, "he was otherwise left on his own to drive and pick up fares and unaccountable to Milenio/Classic." The judge noted claimant set his own schedule and was free to accept or reject the fares dispatched to him by Classic. The compensation judge in Pendola, concluded the driver/petitioner was not an employee of the cab company. The twelve factors are: (1) the employer's right to control the means and manner of the worker's performance (2) the kind of occupation-supervised or unsupervised (3) skill (4) who furnishes the equipment and workplace (5) the length of time in which the individual has worked (6) the method of payment (7) the manner of termination of the work relationship (8) whether there is annual leave (9) whether the work is an integral part of the business of the “employer (10) whether the worker accrues retirement benefits (11) whether the “employer” pays social security taxes and (12) the intention of the parties. The Appellate Court agreed and reversed.Ĭompensation courts in New Jersey apply the twelve factor set forth in Pukowsky v. Appellant appealed claiming he established an employment relationship because his work was an integral part of the auto cab company’s business controlled by the company. d/b/a Classic,the appellant, an auto cab driver, was denied workers’ compensation benefits on the basis that appellant was not an employee of the auto cab company. In a recent New Jersey Appellate Division matter, Pendola v.
0 kommentar(er)
