Help Us Report
DWD Worker Classification
UI Employer Services
Unemployment Insurance - Worker Classification
Part 2: Five 'Keeler' Factors - Government Units
Factor One - Integration (Case Studies)
Whether the services performed directly relate to the activities conducted by the company retaining those services.
Case Studies Relevant to Condition One
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 Factor One.
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 Lopez 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 Factor One.
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 Factor One.
Further Reading and Research
If you wish to read and research further LIRC, circuit court and court of appeals cases on Factor One, please click on the following hyperlink from the LIRC Decision Digest: EE 410.00 multi-factor tests, generally