EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
Choreworkers
A worker who provided in-home child care to her sister's children was approved as a DSHS provider. Because the worker consented to the employment and reasonably believed she worked for DSHS, the Board concluded that she was employed by DSHS and not by the father of the children. Citing Jackson v. Harvey, 72 Wn.App. 507 (1994) review denied, 124 Wn.2d 1003 (1994). ....Sylvia Booth, 92 6148 (1995) (dissent)
Home remodeling contractors
Entrepreneurs selling remodeling packages to homeowners are not "salesmen" employees of a remodeling center whose services they regularly use, where the entrepreneurs are under no obligation to use the remodeling center's services exclusively, and frequently contract with other remodeling centers, or hire their own labor to perform the installation of materials purchased from this or other suppliers. Neither the "right of control" test nor the "nature of the work" test for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship is satisfied. ....Crescent Remodeling Center, 66,160 (1985) [special concurrence]
Home services provider
A worker participated in a DSHS-sponsored program [funded by state and federal monies] providing home services to people who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid nursing facility care. The Department appropriately rejected the claim on the basis that the worker was excluded from coverage due to the domestic servant exception since there was little evidence of supervision or control over the worker's activities. Citing Jackson v. Harvey, 72 Wn.App. 507 (1994) review denied, 124 Wn.2d 1003 (1994). ....Linda Bromley, 93 3892 (1995) [dissent]
Insurance agents - See INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
Jurors
A citizen serving as a juror is not an "employee" nor is the county an "employer" with respect to the juror. Consequently, a juror is not covered under the Act for injuries incurred while so serving. ....Bjorn Viking Bolin, 68,166 (1985) [Reversed, Bolin v. Kitsap County, 114 Wn.2d 70 (1990)][Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Kitsap County Cause No. 92-2-0695-5.]
Loggers - See INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
Outside salespeople See INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
Partners (RCW 51.12.020(5))
In determining whether limited partners are excluded from mandatory coverage pursuant to RCW 51.12.020(5) the Board considers the intent of the parties, as evidenced by their agreement, their acts and conduct, and all the facts and circumstances of the case. Where there was no sharing of profits and losses, the working relationship between the individuals was in reality that of employer and employees, and the sole purpose of the partnership agreement was to evade the benefits and burdens of the Industrial Insurance Act in contravention of RCW 51.04.060, the limited partners were held to be "workers" subject to mandatory coverage under the Act. ....K E W Construction, 87 0152 (1988) [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Thurston County Cause No. 88-2-02759-2.]
Real estate agents See INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
Route managers
Where every aspect of the route manager's job is controlled by the employer and the employer supplies the work as well as the equipment, the fact that the route managers hire helpers and do not believe they are employees does not make them independent contractors. A right to control the work performed and an absolute right to terminate the relationship without liability are inconsistent with the concept of an independent contract and establish an employer-employee relationship. ....Rainbow International, 88 2664 (1990)[Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Thurston County Cause No. 90-2-00248-6.]
Volunteers
An informant for a police vice squad was a volunteer and not an "employee" since the services rendered were primarily to further his own interests, and he received no remuneration other than expense advances. ....Ronald Meyer, 42,576 (1975)