In affirming the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination claimant was an employee of a company (Eden Technologies) which provides computer-training personnel to clients, the Third Department wrote:

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual determination for the Board to resolve and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … .  This Court has held that “‘an organization which screens the services of professionals, pays them at a set rate and then offers their services to clients exercises sufficient control to create an employment relationship'” … . In this case, there is proof that Eden sought, interviewed and selected claimant to perform services at the request of a client. On a weekly basis, claimant was required to submit time sheets provided by Eden, including information about what services were provided.  Eden then paid claimant directly on a biweekly basis at a set hourly rate and billed the client separately. Additionally, certain restrictions were placed upon claimant’s provision of services to Eden’s clients and other entities during her employment and for one year following separation.  Thus, although there is evidence that could support a different result, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision… . Matter of Lamar…, 516039, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

In reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s grant of unemployment benefits to the claimant, the Third Department explained that the hearing officer’s factual findings of disqualifying misconduct cannot be ignored:

While the Board was free to make “independent additional factual findings” and draw its own independent conclusion as to whether claimant’s behavior rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct for purposes of entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits, it was also bound by the Hearing Officer’s “factual findings regarding claimant’s conduct and his conclusion” that claimant had been insubordinate … .  Despite the fact that “the question of claimant’s conduct leading to his termination necessarily had to be considered” in making that assessment, the Board here inexplicably failed to consider whether claimant’s actions … constituted disqualifying misconduct… . Matter of Winters…, 515809, 3rd Dept 9-19-13