State ex rel. Roberds, Inc. v. ConradState ex rel. Roberds, Inc. v. Conrad
Sеction 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution authorizes a board to “classify all occupations, according to their degree of hazard * * The provision was imрlemented in what is now
This directive is reflected in ovеr two hundred separate occupational classifications within the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund Manual, and each classification rеflects a distinct degree of occupational hazard.
The manual designates the basic rate that an employer must pay, per $100 in payroll, to sеcure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Each occupational classification has a corresponding basic dollar rate. This base rate applies to all employers within the classification and effectively spreads the total loss within the classification among all members.
The employer’s submission of premium and payroll data to the bureau is essentially on an honor system. Unless an audit of the employer’s records reveals otherwise, the bureau presumes that the employer has correctly reported its premiums. In this case, the audit revealed that Roberds had misclassified some of its employees. The bureau ultimately classified Roberds’s carpet sales employees under Manual No. 8015-03, “Furniture Stores — retail or whоlesale— no manufacturing including warehouse, delivery and all incidental operations.” Roberds seeks reclassification of these workers into the lowеr rate category of Manual No. 8747-15, “Traveling Salespersons,” and advances two reasons in support. Neither reason is persuasive.
Roberds first argues thаt because carpet sales employees do some work outside the store, ie., measuring rooms and providing on-site advice, they should be considerеd Traveling Salespersons. A considerable amount of work, however, is also done in-store by these employees, and it was the bureau’s prerogative tо best characterize the activity performed by them.
Roberds also argues that because its corporate officers have been classified as Traveling Salespersons, so should its carpet sales people. This argument is untenable, since the two groups of employees do not have similar funсtions.
The bureau is afforded a “wide range of discretion” in dealing with the “difficult problem” of occupational classification. State ex rel. McHugh v. Indus. Comm. (1942),
Two provisions are relevant.
“The bureau shall have thе right at all times * * * to inspect, examine or audit any or all books, records, papers, documents and payroll of * * * employers for the purpose of verifying the correctness of reports made by employers of wage expenditures * * *. The bureau shall also have the right to make adjustments as to classifications, allocation of wage expenditures to classifications, amount of wage expenditures, premium rates or amount of premium.. No adjustments, however, shall be made in an employer’s account which result in reducing any amount of premium below the amount of contributions made by the employer to thе fund for the periods involved, except in reference to adjustments for the semiannual or adjustment periods ending within twenty-four months immediately prior to the beginning оf the current payroll reporting period * *
The other provision,
“(A) Whenever the bureau of workers’ compensation detects an inaccuracy in the recording or prоcessing of data, records, payroll, claims, or other pertinent items affecting the risk’s status, merit-rated modification or premium, such discrepancy shall bе corrected. This correction shall be accomplished regardless of whether this entails increasing or decreasing the risk’s merit-rated modification or premium rate. * * *
“(B) Any correction made pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (A) of this rule shall be applied to the current rating year, the immediately preceding rating year, and to all subsequent rating years as of the date on which the error was discovered by the bureau or reported to the bureau, whichever date is earlier ‡ »
Because
Further, the court of appeals, through its magistrate, made the same observation in State ex rel. Bauer Roofing & Siding Co. v. Devery (Feb. 1, 1996), Franklin App. No. 95APD01-37, unreported. In that case, Roberds’s counsel made the same argument on behalf of a different employer. In rejecting that propositiоn, the magistrate wrote in a report issued on October 13, 1995:
“Although the dictum in Harry Wolsky Stairbuilder [sic ], Inc. does not control the outcome of the instant case, it is noteworthy that the adjustments resulting in additionаl payments due from relator herein arose from relator’s inappropriate reporting of payroll classifications, as was discovered during thе BWC audit of relator’s records. This is the same category of error which the court considered in Harry Wolsky Stair Builder, Inc.[,] where the court had expressed the belief that all subsection [17](C) errors were intended by the BWC to be treated uniformly with respect to the time period for adjustments.”
Bauer made a second observation:
“Moreover, subsection [17](C) refers specifically to the auditing of employers’ records for the purpose of verifying the correctness of employers’ reports. This is in contrast to subsection 28[,] which permits the BWC tо correct inaccuracies in the recording or processing of information.
Roberds’s argument potentially eviscerates
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.