You are here: / / Tour Musicians Were Employees of Columbia Artists Management; Workers Who...

Tour Musicians Were Employees of Columbia Artists Management; Workers Who Loaded and Unloaded Equipment Were Not Employees

The Third Department determined that, for purposes of assessing unemployment insurance contributions, musicians on tour were employees of, not independent contractors for, Columbia Artists Management, but the workers who loaded and unloaded the equipment used by the musicians were independent contractors, not employees:

… [T]here are a number of factors that establish that Columbia retained control over important aspects of the musicians’ work.  Specifically, Columbia paid the musicians a flat fee per week for the duration of the tour as well as the costs of transportation, lodging and miscellaneous expenses, supplied them with sheet music on occasion and prohibited them from taking on engagements that conflicted with the tour.  Most significantly, under the written contracts, Columbia retained the right to ensure the artistic quality of the show by insisting that a performance be changed if it found it to be inappropriate. In addition to retaining broad overall control over the musicians’ performances, Columbia retained the right to dismiss any musician for drug or alcohol abuse.  In view of this, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship between Columbia and the musicians … .

We reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to the loaders.  There is nothing in the record to indicate that Columbia exerted any type of control over either the means or the results of the work of these individuals.  All communications involved in retaining the loaders occurred through the union representative at the venue, who dictated the terms of payment as well as the number of loaders needed.  The Columbia representative present at the time the trucks were unloaded was there solely for the purpose of paying the loaders and provided no equipment or instruction to assist them in performing their work.  Matter of Columbia Artists Management LLC…, 515768, 3rd Dept 9-26-13

 

You might also like
Expert Affidavit in Support of Hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment Not Sufficient
BECAUSE CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A NONSCHEDULE AWARD DUE TO RETIREMENT, HE WAS ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD (THIRD DEPT).
IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
A JAIL PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE MIGHT PLEAD GUILTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE; THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION REFERENCE TO THE PORTION OF THE PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE NEEDED A “PAID LAWYER” WAS AN IMPROPER USE OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AGAINST THE DEFENDANT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Detention by Immigration Officials Did Not Disqualify Claimant from Receiving Workers’ Compensation Benefits
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED FATHER’S COUNSEL’S OFFER TO REMAIN AS STANDBY COUNSEL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT WARNING FATHER OF THE DANGERS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER HAD CAUSE TO FIRE CLAIMANT FOR TARDINESS AND ABSENCES, CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Late Notice of Settlement of Negligence Action to Workers’ Compensation Carrier Did Not Preclude Court-Approval of Settlement Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Sentencing Court Could Amend Restitution Amount But First Must Give Defendant... Claimant Who Sold Educational Materials Was an Employee