BR-120513-XA (Apr. 13, 2012) -- Board held that the claimant was an employee of a delivery service because the employer failed to sustain its burden under G.L. c. 151A, § 2(c). A contractual non-compete clause covering the period during which the claimant worked for the employer and extending for 3 years after he left the company rendered the claimant incapable of conducting his own independent business without the employer’s permission. [Note: The District Court affirmed the Board of Review’s Decision.]
BR-117473-XA (Jan. 24, 2012) – Pedicab drivers who were contractually prohibited from using the pedicabs for other business purposes and from operating or managing a similar business within the employer's area of operation both while working for the employer and for 12 months following the end of their lease were employees. They were not sufficiently free of the employer's direction and control under prong (a) or able to engage in an independently established business of a similar nature under prong (c) of G.L. c. 151A, § 2.
BR-116119-XA (Sept. 28, 2011) – Under G.L. c. 151A, § 2, the employer proved that its newspaper carriers were independent contractors. Under prong (a), the relationship more closely resembled the degree of direction and control over newspaper carriers in the Supreme Judicial Court's Athol Daily News decision, rather than over the carriers in the Mass. Appeals Court's Driscoll decision.
- BR-112274-XA (Feb. 9, 2012) – The extensive regulation of this interstate truck driver’s work activities imposed by federal law, the contractual terms which prohibited the claimant from using his leased truck to haul for other carriers, and the requirement that he obtain the employer’s approval to sublease his truck compelled the Board to conclude that the claimant was an employee and not an independent contractor under state law. [Note: Appeal is pending in the District Court].
BR-108261-XA (Mar. 10, 2010) -- Delivery drivers for bakery were not independent contractors because they were not permitted to carry competitors’ products without the employer’s prior approval. Thus, they were not free of the employer’s control, and they were largely dependent upon the employer to grow their customer base.