C.C. Eastern, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that owner/operators were not employees for purpose of National Labor Relations Act because, inter alia, company did not require tractors to be of any specific type, size, or color
• characterizing the Board’s employee-or-independent-contractor determination as an “application of the law of agency to established and undisputed findings of fact”
• noting that in resolving issues requiring reference to the common law of agency, the court does not review the Board's determination de novo, but instead will \uphold the Board if it can be said to have 'made a choice between two fairly conflicting views' \
• finding the following facts, among many others, to be indicative of an independent contractor relationship: the employer does not \exercise any control over the drivers' dress or appearance” or \require the tractors to be of any specific type, size, or color”
• whether and how often owner-operators drive for other companies is important to a determination of agency status
• “[W]here a company’s control over an aspect of the workers’ performance is motivated by a concern for customer service, that control does not suggest an employment relationship.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).