Search for: "Plumbers "
Results 361 - 380
of 1,799
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2018, 2:00 am
Painters, plumbers, lawyers, accountants, janitors, life coaches, and similar traditional independent contractors. [read post]
21 May 2018, 5:17 am
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No 100 8212 1256, 421 U.S. 616, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975) even if the counter party is a “construction industry employer” they still must have a bargaining relationship with the union. [read post]
21 May 2018, 5:17 am
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No 100 8212 1256, 421 U.S. 616, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975) even if the counter party is a “construction industry employer” they still must have a bargaining relationship with the union. [read post]
21 May 2018, 1:00 am
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd & Anor v Smith, heard 20-21 Feb 2018. [read post]
18 May 2018, 12:54 pm
After briefly meeting with a plumber, he left to return to work. [read post]
18 May 2018, 12:54 pm
After briefly meeting with a plumber, he left to return to work. [read post]
14 May 2018, 1:00 am
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd & Anor v Smith, heard 20-21 Feb 2018. [read post]
8 May 2018, 9:00 am
(And plumbers, by the way, are great. [read post]
7 May 2018, 3:58 pm
The Court, however, conceded that the “suffer or permit to work” standard is a “term of art” that cannot be interpreted literally because it would obviously encompass workers who are traditional independent contractors (e.g. plumbers) and would more or less eviscerate the commonly understood distinction between employees and independent contractors. [read post]
7 May 2018, 3:58 pm
The Court, however, conceded that the “suffer or permit to work” standard is a “term of art” that cannot be interpreted literally because it would obviously encompass workers who are traditional independent contractors (e.g. plumbers) and would more or less eviscerate the commonly understood distinction between employees and independent contractors. [read post]
7 May 2018, 1:00 am
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd & Anor v Smith, heard 20-21 Feb 2018. [read post]
4 May 2018, 11:58 pm
The Court set forth a few examples: When a retail store hires an outside plumber to repair a leak in a bathroom on its premises or hires an outside electrician to install a new electrical line, the services of the plumber or electrician are not part of the store’s usual course of business and the store would not reasonably be seen as having suffered or permitted the plumber or electrician to provide services to it as an employee. [read post]
3 May 2018, 7:20 am
These people are better served by hiring their own plumber after the closing for a few hundred dollars, rather than making it an issue with the seller who may have other options. [read post]
3 May 2018, 7:20 am
These people are better served by hiring their own plumber after the closing for a few hundred dollars, rather than making it an issue with the seller who may have other options. [read post]
2 May 2018, 1:57 pm
However, the Court indicated that the “suffer or permit to work” standard is a “term of art” that cannot be interpreted literally because it would obviously encompass workers who are traditional independent contractors (e.g. plumbers). [read post]
2 May 2018, 6:57 am
The suffer or permit to work definition “is a term of art that cannot be interpreted literally in a manner that would encompass within the employee category the type of individual workers, like independent plumbers or electricians, who have traditionally been viewed as genuine independent contractors who are working only in their own independent business” (Dynamex Operations West, Inc., April 30, 2018, Cantil-Sakauye, T.). [read post]
1 May 2018, 1:02 pm
The Court, however, conceded that the “suffer or permit to work” standard is a “term of art” that cannot be interpreted literally because it would obviously encompass workers who are traditional independent contractors (e.g. plumbers) and would more or less eviscerate the commonly understood distinction between employees and independent contractors. [read post]
1 May 2018, 9:19 am
With respect to the particularly narrow Part B of the new test, the court explained that a plumber hired by a retail store to fix a bathroom leak or an electrician installing a new power line in the store, for example, would not be employees since they were not part of the store’s usual course of business. [read post]
1 May 2018, 4:00 am
., like independent plumbers and electricians, who could not reasonably have been intended by the wage order to be treated as employees of the hiring business. [read post]
1 May 2018, 4:00 am
., like independent plumbers and electricians, who could not reasonably have been intended by the wage order to be treated as employees of the hiring business. [read post]
