Unemployment compensation and Partnerships

Unemployment Compensation and Partnerships
Name:
Course title:
Instructor:
Institution:
Date Due:

Question 1: The Case of VIP Tours, Inc v/s Cynthia Hoogland
VIP Tours, Inc. arranged tours of central Florida’s attractions for visitors to the area. Cynthia Hoogland conducted 29 such tours for VIP between July 1980 and March 1981. Both Hoogland and VIP considered Hoogland an independent contractor. She worked for VIP only when it needed her services, and could reject particular assignments. She was also free to work for other tour services, and did so.
Once Hoogland accepted a job from VIP, she was told where to report and given instructions about the job. She was required to use a VIP-furnished vehicle and to wear a uniform with the VIP logo when conducting tours. Aside from ensuring that she departed on time, however, VIP did not tell her how long to stay or what kind of tour to conduct at each tourist attraction. Hoogland was paid on a per-tour basis.
Hoogland later filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits with the Florida Division of Labor and Employment Security. The division concluded that she was entitled to these benefits because she was a VIP Tours’ employee. VIP appealed the division’s order to an intermediate appellate court.
Please decide if she was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits or was not entitled to unemployment compensation and show your reasoning. Please make sure that you are thorough. Do not assume any facts and please distinguish as clearly as you can on as many legal and factual bases what your reasoning is behind your conclusions.
Hoogland may not be eligible for unemployment benefits. This is because for one to be eligible for these kinds of benefits, he or she must first be considered an employee of the company. Although the aspect of one being labelled as an independent contractor does not automatically exclude one from being considered an employee, many factors are considered for a clear determination of the issue. Employees are entitled for a monthly wage or salary, in this case, Hoogland who was hired as a tour operator was paid on as per tour basis. This is a clear indication of her independent status. At the appellate court, she will be asked to produce all salary or wage records earned over the last year.
Companies also provide certain benefits to their employees such as social security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, bonuses and other benefits (Fabio, 2010). Mrs. Hoogland was not entitled to these benefits, as she was not considered and employee of the organisation. The mutual agreement between Hoogland, and VIP was that of independent contractor relationship and as such, she performed her duties independently. Moreover, the services performed by her were out of the business premise, in other words, her schedules and place of work were not specified hence giving her autonomy on how to go about her businesses.
In the l...