In re the Claim of Watson

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 4, 2013, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits and that Partsfleet Inc. was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Partsfleet Inc. is in the business of providing logistics and dispatch services for the delivery of auto parts and related products to its customers. It entered into a written agreement with Subcontracting Concepts, Inc. (hereinafter SCI) to broker transportation services for its business. From November 2009 until May 2010, claimant worked as a delivery driver servicing Partsfleet’s customers. After claimant ceased providing delivery services, he filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. Following extended proceedings, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that an employment relationship existed between claimant and Partsfleet entitling claimant to receive benefits. In addition, the Board assessed Partsfleet for additional unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated. Partsfleet appeals.

Here, although Partsfleet had a contract with SCI and it was SCI that issued claimant’s paychecks, SCI had no involvement in the services that claimant performed. Claimant was retained as a delivery driver following a short interview with a Partsfleet representative and a check of his motor vehicle record. Partsfleet trained him on the operation of a scanner used to schedule and track customer deliveries, and briefed him on the requirements of the customers. The delivery schedule was set by Partsfleet based upon customer requests, and it monitored deliveries via the scanner. Claimant was paid based on the particular delivery route that he had completed at a rate that Partsfleet set with its customer, and claimant was paid if he completed the route regardless of whether the customer paid Partsfleet. Claimant worked out of a warehouse that belonged to one of Partsfleet’s customers and that is where he left his completed route sheets, which were then collected by a Partsfleet representative. Any problems with deliveries were generally handled by a Partsfleet representative. Although claimant could work for other companies and find replacements if he could not work a particular route, the replacements had to be approved by Partsfleet. The foregoing establishes that Partsfleet maintained control over important aspects of claimant’s work as was necessary to insure that its customers’ needs were satisfied. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that an employment relationship existed between claimant and Partsfleet thereby entitling him to receive benefits (see Matter of Lombard [SOH Distrib. Co., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 52 AD3d 981 , 982 [2008]; Matter of Ganapathy [Zurich Depository Corp.— Sweeney], 243 AD2d 981 , 981 [1997]).

We reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to the Board’s assessment of additional contributions based on remu