The worker later approached the employer about financial difficulties he faced with the contracting model. The worker explained during proceedings that “the contracting on a per load basis was difficult to make financially viable – although the rate was higher, expenses were too.” This conversation became central to the worker’s claim that their relationship fundamentally changed.
From contractor to employee
Following the worker’s concerns about the contracting arrangement’s viability, the employer offered to personally pay the worker as an employee at $34.00 per hour as a short-term solution.
The employer made an initial payment of $5,676.11 to the worker on 26 October 2023, which the worker’s bank statement confirmed represented wages for work completed under the new hourly arrangement.
The worker then performed an additional 73 hours of work under what he claimed was the employment arrangement. He sent an invoice to the employer personally for $4,846.10, requesting payment for this second period of employment work. The worker received partial payment but remained owed $1,981.09, which formed the basis of his wage recovery claim to the ERA.
The worker distinguished this employment work from his earlier contracting activities through several operational differences. During the claimed employment period, he reported hours worked rather than loads completed, had all expenses covered by the employer, and invoiced the employer personally rather than the company.
