(a) The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no single rule
or test for determining whether an individual is an employee or an
independent contractor, but that the ``total situation
controls'' (see Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 United States 722;
United States v. Silk, 331 United States 704; Harrison v. Greyvan Lines,
331 United States 704; Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 United States 126). In
general an employee, as distinguished from a person who is engaged in a
business of his own, is one who ``follows the usual path of an
employee'' and is dependent on the business which he serves. As an aid
in assessing the total situation the Court mentioned some of the
characteristics of the two classifications which should be considered.
Among these are: The extent to which the services rendered are an
integral part of the principal's business, the permanency of the
relationship, the opportunities for profit or loss, the initiative
judgment or foresight exercised by the one who performs the services,
the amount of investment, and the degree of control which the principal
has in the situation. The Court specifically rejected the degree of
control retained by the principal as the sole criterion to be applied.
(b) At least in one situation it is possible to be specific: (1)
Where the sawmill or concentration yard to which the products are
delivered owns the land or the appropriation rights to the timber or
other forestry products; (2) the crew boss has no very substantial
investment in tools or machinery used; and (3) the crew does not
transfer its relationship as a unit from one sawmill or concentration
yard to another, the crew boss and the employees working under him will
be considered employees of the sawmill or concentration yard. Other
situations, where one or more of these three factors is not present,
will be considered as they arise on the basis of the criteria mentioned
in paragraph (a) of this section. Where all of these three criteria are
present, however, it will make no difference if the crew boss receives
the entire compensation for the production from the sawmill or
concentration yard and distributes it in any way he chooses to the crew
members. Similarly, it will make no difference if the hiring, firing,
and supervising of the crew members is left in the hands of the crew
boss. (See Tobin v. LaDuke, 190 F. 2d 977 (C.A. 9); Tobin v. Anthony-
Williams Mfg. Co., 196 F. 2d 547 (C.A. 8).)
