A-1 Construction, Inc., Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development
A16-436
| Minn. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2016Background
- A-1 Construction (relator), owned by James Perrault, was audited by DEED and found to have misclassified several construction workers as independent contractors for 2012.
- The ULJ held hearings and found some workers properly classified as independent contractors but determined several owner-operators were employees because they did not submit invoices in the business-entity name.
- Examples: owners who submitted job work orders showing only a personal name or first name (e.g., “Shane,” “Gary,” “Shane” written in) were treated as failing the invoice-name requirement; RAM Construction’s entries of “RAM” or “R.A.M.” were accepted as entity names.
- The ULJ also deemed Ken Donald an employee for failing to register with the DLI by the statutory deadline; relator raised the registration-applicability issue only on appeal.
- Relator sought reconsideration twice and petitioned for certiorari after the ULJ affirmed; the Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation and ULJ findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether invoices must be submitted in the formal business-entity name | Relator: job work orders or a person’s name suffice; focus on meaning of “invoice” not name-form | DEED/ULJ: statute requires invoices in the business-entity name; job orders can be invoices but must show entity name | Court: statute unambiguous—invoice must be in business-entity name; ULJ correctly treated those lacking entity names as employees |
| Whether relator’s job work orders qualify as invoices regardless of form | Relator: statute doesn’t prescribe form, so these job orders qualify | DEED conceded job work orders can be invoices; ULJ accepted them as invoices when they bore entity name | Court: form is not prescribed; DEED’s concession and ULJ finding stand—issue is name shown on invoice |
| Whether statute applied to services performed before Sept. 15, 2012 (effective/grace period) | Relator: ULJ improperly reached back before Sept. 15, 2012 | DEED/ULJ: grace period only extended registration deadline; other statutory requirements applied from July 1, 2012 | Court: ULJ correct—grace period only affected registration; failing other requirements before Sept. 15 could still render person an employee |
| Whether Ken Donald was required to register with DLI | Relator (raised on appeal): registration requirement didn’t apply to Donald | DEED/ULJ: Donald failed to register and was thus an employee | Court: issue not preserved below; no record evidence or ULJ ruling to review, so appellate challenge not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Croix Sensory Inc. v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 785 N.W.2d 796 (Minn. App. 2010) (classification of worker as employee vs. independent contractor is mixed question of law and fact)
- Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. App. 2006) (appellate deference to ULJ factual findings and credibility)
- Neve v. Austin Daily Herald, 552 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. App. 1996) (existence of employment relationship is a legal question)
- Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 778 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2010) (statutory interpretation follows plain meaning when language is unambiguous)
- County of Dakota v. Cameron, 839 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2013) (courts may not add words to unambiguous statutes)
- Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (issues not raised below generally are not considered on appeal)