Unemployment Insurance - Worker Classification

Part 2: Six of Nine Conditions - Indian Tribal Government

Condition Six - Services Do Not Directly Relate (Case Studies)

The services performed by the individual do not directly relate to the employing unit retaining the services.

Case Studies Relevant to Condition Six

Wis. LIRC UC Decision: Katie Williams - November 21, 2007

The Milwaukee Teacher Education Center (MTEC), a nonprofit, offers a masters degree program in urban education. Williams was selected as an instructor by MTEC, which established the class schedule after consulting with Williams, and to which Williams submitted her syllabus/instruction plan. Williams instructed one of the core courses in this program during the fall of 2006 and the spring of 2007. Williams filed for unemployment benefits in October of 2006. MTEC appealed the decision of the administrative law judge to the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC). MTEC claimed that Williams was an independent contractor, not an employee.

LIRC determined that the Williams' services were integrated into MTEC's business. MTEC developed and implemented instructional programs, and Williams instructed a course within one of those programs. Williams did not meet Condition Six.

Wis. LIRC UC Decision: Lopez, Daniel - January 15, 2010

Beginning in 2007, the Daniel Lopez began performing services as a Spanish interpreter for the Richland County government during out-of-court interactions between the sheriff's department and private individuals. During Lopez's base period, he earned wages for performing these services. The issue is whether performed his services for Richland County as an employee or an independent contractor.

The services provided by Lopez were integrated into the law enforcement activities of Richland County. The record shows that Lopez provided these services during out-of-court interactions between Spanish-speaking individuals and county law enforcement personnel. Lopez did not meet Condition Six.

Wis. LIRC UC Decision: Ristau, Paul - August 23, 2006

Paul Ristau worked under annual contract for the Fox Valley Symphony Orchestra (FVSO) as principal tympanist. As a musician, Ristau, under the terms of his contract with the FVSO, was to abide by the terms of the orchestra's member handbook, which required attendance at rehearsals and performances, prohibited disruptive behavior, and stated a consequence for violating these requirements. Ristau filed for unemployment benefits in 2006. The issue is whether he performed these services for the FVSO as an employee or an independent contractor.

LIRC found that Ristau's services are integrated into the employer's business. The services of a musician are directly related to the operation of an orchestra. Ristau did not meet Condition Six.

Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 241 Wis. 200, 5 N.W. 2d 743 (1942)

Elliot was a salesman hired by Moorman Manufacturing to sell its stock feed under contract in a specified territory. Elliot used his own automobile, worked when, as, and where he pleased and paid his own expenses. The issue was whether Elliot performed his services for Moorman Manufacturing as an employee or an independent contractor.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Elliot provided his services as an employee and not an independent contractor. The court held that Elliot was not engaged in an independent trade or business. Elliot's services were integrated into Moorman's business. The court used the example of a tinsmith to illustrate integration. A company hired a tinsmith to repair a company's gutters when the company is engaged in a business unrelated to either repair or manufacture of gutters. Because the tinsmith's activities were totally unrelated to the business activity conducted by the company retaining his services, the services performed by the tinsmith do not directly relate to the activities conducted by the company retaining those services and these services were, therefore, not integrated into the company's business.