Tag Archives: Employee

Alex J. Martinez, as Manager of Safety for the City and County of Denver, v. Denver Firefighters Local No. 858, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 2014CO15 (March 3, 2014)

“[D]iscipline exists outside the ambit of collective bargaining.” Opinion. Firefighters Union sued Denver, claiming new disciplinary rules violated its 1971 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by altering the terms and conditions of employment. Denver argued the City Charter vested the city with the unilateral right to draft disciplinary rules. The trial court issued injunction, preventing enforcement of the new rules, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the rules to be a term and condition of employment, subject to the agreement. Deciding an issue of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court held the plain language of the City Charter expressly granted Denver the unilateral right to draft and implement disciplinary rules, and that the rules were not included in the CBA as a term or condition of employment, subject to collective bargaining.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SC736.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9266&courtid=2

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Administrative, Government

Western Logistics, Inc., d/b/a Diligent Delivery Systems, v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 2012COA186 (October 25, 2012)

Delivery drivers being directed and controlled are not independent contractors. The Division of Employment and Training made a determination that 220 drivers working for a delivery business were employees for unemployment tax liability purposes, notwithstanding language in the drivers’ contracts stating they were independent contractors. The court of appeals upheld the administrative ruling based on the following facts: 1) the drivers were not customarily engaged in the delivery business, 2) they did not offer those services to others, 3) they were paid under their own names, 4) the business set prices, determined clients, and required compatible cell phones, among others, and 5) employer could terminate contracts without penalty, demonstrating a right to control the drivers. Thus, the drivers were employees for unemployment tax purposes under CRS 8-70-115(1)(b).

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA2461-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8718&courtid=1

[Certiorari Granted]

2 Comments

Filed under Administrative, Contracts, Government, Workers Compensation