C & L Leasing Co v State of Michigan, BW&UC
Digest no. 20.08
Cite as: C & L Leasing Co v State of Michigan, BW&UC, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued March 11, 2003 (Docket No. 02-4341-AE).
Appeal pending: No
Employer: C & L Leasing Company
Docket no.: L2001-00056-RO1-2795
Date of decision: March 11, 2003
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: An employer will not be considered to be an “employee leasing company” unless the employer satisfiesall of the requirements of UA Rule 190.
FACTS: Employer’s (C & L) secretary/treasurer testified that employer performed payroll services and provided employees to two other companies, Michigan Awning and Panel Laminations. Ownership of the three companies was intertwined among various family members and in-laws. Employer’s business and Michigan Awning operated out of employer’s secretary/treasurer’s residence. Employer’s secretary/treasurer’s husband and his parents had supervisory control over the employees.
DECISION: Employer is not an employee leasing company. Payroll of workers at the “client” companies is reassigned to the individual companies.
RATIONALE: To be eligible for employee leasing company status, an employer must satisfy all of the requirements of Rule 190. Employer failed to show it met the requirements of Rule 190(2). Employer did not “in fact” hire, promote, reassign, discipline and terminate the leased employees, as required by Rule 190(2)(b). Employer did not hold itself out to the general public as available to provide leasing services, as required by Rule 190(2)(f). Employer’s solicitation letter represented employer as in the business of providing payroll and administrative services.
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/04