• john Brown sells the products of an ice cream factory- Master Cream. While transporting the products in a car, he was run over by a truck. He suffered a fracture of the left wrist and pelvis. His claim for compensation was found inadmissible on the grounds that between the injured party and the manufacturer -there is no necessary contractual relationship between worker and employer to consider the petitioner as a regular salaried worker of those protected by the law. John Brown appealed the decision, his lawyer argued that at the time of the accident Brown worked for the employer Master Cream; that the accident suffered by Brown arose from an act or function inherent to his work or employment; and that Brown had the right to compensation set by law. The boss alleges that the lawyer erred in positing that the relations between Brown and the ice cream factory were those of employer and employee and not those of a mere transaction of sale between said parties. Brown testified that on the day of the accident he was driving a refrigerated truck from the factory, going from Mt. Salem to Ironshore in the city; he said that the company gave him the car to sell the products on a fixed route, which included from the community of Mt. Salem to Ironshore where the factory is located, and he cannot deviate from that route because if he did the employer would take his car. The relations between the worker and the company were described by Brown in the following way: he asked the employer for $25,000 worth of products and selected five boxes of popsicles, but the employer always gave him seven boxes and he had to accept them because otherwise, he would not get the goods; that sometimes he would ask for $10,000 worth of products and they would give him $15,000 and he was forced to take what the employer wanted and not what he wanted. Brown says that sometimes he asked for one type of product, and they gave him others, and he felt obligated to take them. The price of $100 for each item was fixed by the manufacturing employer, without the seller worker being able to sell it to the public at a higher or lower price. Brown also stated that the worker was obliged to go every morning, between 8 and 9 a.m., to check his car, and had to return at 9:30 at night to give an account of the day and sales, and if he didn't do it that way, they would take away his car or punished him by suspending the delivery of goods for two or three days. Further, if he had surplus merchandise, in good condition, it is returned to the factory and if it is not, the worker loses it; and he had to pay for any damage suffered by the car and for the tires and tubes. Also, he was also obliged to carefully follow the instructions that the employer gave him because if he did not do so they would fire him. Brown earned $6,000 a day, and equivalent to a 30 % commission on the sales he made. Lastly, the injured party stated that the manufacturer prohibited street vendors from using liquor, drinking and from gambling. Peter Jones, the owner of the ice cream factory, stated that the factory is covered by a policy with an Insurance Fund; that Brown was his client because he bought the products at the same price at which the factory sold them wholesale to other clients. Jones said that he provided street vendors with a refrigerator car, which is necessary to prevent ice cream from melting, and that sellers are not bound in any way by the times of entry or exit in the business. Jones explained that these customers have fixed routes to sell the merchandise; and that no discount commission is given to them for what they sell, but rather that they buy at the wholesale price paid by other customers who do not have cars to sell and that street vendors have never been in the payroll as factory employees because none of them have a salary or fixed commission. He asserts that Brown was not and has not been an employee of his factory and that "the only thing that Brown received for the sale of the products that we delivered to him was the commission that he was given"; and that he saw Brown every day and knows that he was a salesman from the factory. Jones explained that he did not inform the insurance company about the accident that happened to Brown because he considered him a customer and not an employee. The employer admitted that the street vendors had determined routes, assigned by the factory and that when a vendor insisted on deviating from his route then the factory will refuse to deliver more products to that vendor. The factory sells its products, wholesale, to hotels, restaurants, bars, and cafes to which the boss provides a refrigerated car, on the condition that they will purchase the company's products and use the car exclusively for storing these products. The sales that the company makes to the establishments that have been mentioned are at a fixed price and not based on commission on the number of products sold on a given day. Some of those customers pay for the merchandise upon delivery and others are granted credit for thirty or sixty days. The relations between the vendors of the products and the factory are substantially different from those existing between said factory and the hotels and other fixed establishments. Street vendors do not buy products at a time chosen by them, to sell them where, when, and at the price that suits them. According to the evidence, such sellers are required to receive the merchandise between 8 and 9 a.m., transporting it in cars owned by the factory; to account for the sales made during a given day, before at 9:30 p.m. that same day; to accept the kind and quantity of products that the factory is kind enough to deliver to them; to sell said products at the price fixed by the factory; not to make any sale outside the route assigned by the factory; not to drink liquor, or to participate in gambling. It is true that street vendors do not receive a fixed salary and that the compensation they receive for their work is determined based on 30 % of the sale price of products sold during a given day. However, this form of compensation is necessary due to the nature of the services provided by the worker and for the protection of the interests of the manufacturer of the products. If the street vendor, who works outside the inspection or supervision of the manufacturer or his representatives, receives for his services a fixed salary, their interest in selling as many products as possible would wane. The determination of compensation based on a commission on total sales made during the day is an incentive used by the manufacturer to stimulate the street vendor to sell as much as possible, knowing that his compensation will increase as sales increase. Jones insists that Brown was an independent contractor and not an employee of the company.

  Questions:

• Considering the above case:

• 1. Explain how would you classify the relationship between John Brown and Peter Jones, according to an employee or independent contractor?

 2. If you were a judge, what considerations and criteria would you use to decide the dispute presented? 

 3. Compare and contrast this case with the 2022 Marksman case in Jamaica?



• 
  

  
   

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 Based on the details provided the relationship between John Brown and Peter Jones can be classified as that of an independent contractor rather than ... View the full answer