"In Tata v Muskovitz, supra, this Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice TALBOT SMITH in Powell v Employment Security Comm, 345 Mich. 455; 75 N.W.2d 874 (1956), in which he set forth the economic reality test as the proper guide to relevant interpretation of the workmen's compensation statute. See, also, Schulte v American Box Board Co, 358 Mich. 21; 99 N.W.2d 367 (1959); Goodchild v Erickson, 375 Mich. 289; 134 N.W.2d 191 (1965); Solakis v Roberts, 395 Mich. 13; 233 N.W.2d 1 (1975); Askew v Macomber, 398 Mich. 212; 247 N.W.2d 288 (1976)."
It is found that the State of Michigan, Department of Social Services, was plaintiff's employer for Workers' Compensation purposes. Askew v Macomber, 398 Mich. 212 [ 247 N.W.2d 288] (1976). Indicia to substantiate this finding are: (1) no explicit agency agreement has been shown to exist between defendant and Mrs. Johnson.
Eighth, weight should be given to those factors which will most favorably effectuate the objectives of the statute. The Supreme Court has cited McKissic with approval, see Askew v. Macomber , 398 Mich. 212, 217 n. 7, 247 N.W.2d 288 (1976), and most recently applied the eight factors, rather than merely four, in Coblentz v. Novi , 475 Mich. 558, 578-580, 719 N.W.2d 73 (2006), to determine whether the defendant city's attorney was an employee or independent contractor for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq.
Schultz v American Box Board Co, 358 Mich. 21, 33; 99 N.W.2d 367 (1959). See, also, Tata v Muskovitz, 354 Mich. 695; 94 N.W.2d 71 (1959); Askew v Macomber, 398 Mich. 212; 247 N.W.2d 288 (1976); McKissic v Bodine, 42 Mich. App. 203; 201 N.W.2d 333 (1972); Nichol v Billot, 406 Mich. 284; 279 N.W.2d 761 (1979); Solakis v Roberts, 395 Mich. 13; 233 N.W.2d 1 (1975); Allossery v Employers Temporary Service, Inc, 88 Mich. App. 496, 277 N.W.2d 340 (1979). The economic reality test looks to the employment situation in relation to the statutory scheme of workers' compensation law with the goal of preserving and securing the rights and privileges of all parties. No one factor is controlling.
Based on these facts, the board then considered the factors enunciated in McKissic v Bodine, 42 Mich. App. 203, 208-209; 201 N.W.2d 333 (1972), lv den 388 Mich. 780 (1972), to determine whether plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor. See also Askew v Macomber, 398 Mich. 212, 217-218; 247 N.W.2d 288 (1976). A careful review of the record reveals that the board applied the proper legal standard to findings of fact supported by competent evidence.
Dressler v Grand Rapids Die Casting Corp, 402 Mich. 243; 262 N.W.2d 629 (1978). Our inquiry is limited to determining whether those evidential facts established the pertinent jural relationship of employer/employee. Askew v Macomber, 398 Mich. 212; 247 N.W.2d 288 (1976). See Deziel v Difco Laboratories, Inc, 394 Mich. 466; 232 N.W.2d 146 (1975).
These include the control of a worker's duties; the payment of wages; the right to hire, fire or discipline; and the performance of duties as an integral part of the employer's business toward the accomplishment of a common goal. Askew v. Macomber, 398 Mich. 212, 247 N.W.2d 288 (1976). The test concerns itself with the realities of the work performed and requires that the described elements be viewed as a whole, assigning primacy to no single one. Schulte v. American Box Board Co., 358 Mich. 21, 99 N.W.2d 367 (1959).
Whether or not plaintiff was an employee of TSN, as contemplated by the Michigan act, must be resolved by reference to an "economic reality" test developed by Michigan courts to replace the common law "control" test. See, e.g., Wells v. Firestone Tire Rubber Co., 421 Mich. 641, 364 N.W.2d 670 (1984); Askew v. Macomber, 398 Mich. 212, 247 N.W.2d 288 (1976). This requires viewing an employment situation as a whole in relation to the statutory scheme contemplated by the Michigan act. Control of the worker's duties, payment of wages, authority to hire and fire, and responsibility for the maintenance of discipline, are all factors to be considered, but no one factor is controlling.
The Supreme Court has cited McKissic with approval, see Askew v. Macomber, 398 Mich. 212, 217 n.7, 247 N.W.2d 288 (1976), and most recently applied the eight factors, rather than merely four, in Coblentz v. Novi, 475 Mich. 558, 578-580, 719 N.W.2d 73 (2006), to determine whether the defendant city's attorney was an employee or independent contractor for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq.
The arbitrator found that "Michigan applies the `Economic Reality Test' to discern an employment relationship." Arb. Mem. at 1 (citing Askew v. Macomber, 247 N.W.2d 288, 290 (Mich. 1976). The arbitrator stated, "[t]he cases promulgated several factors to be considered in determining employment status.