Gadalean v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.005(30), a "'worker' means any person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, subject to the direct control of an employer."

SAIF appealed a finding that Claimant was a "worker" during his pre-employment driving test under ORS 656.005(30).  SAIF assigned error to the Court of Appeals conclusion that "[a]n agreement for remuneration existed between claimant and employer as a matter of law."  On appeal, SAIF argued that "a contract with an express or implied agreement between the employer and a person 'who engages to furnish services for remuneration'" would be required to qualify Claimant as a “worker.”  In response, Claimant argued that minimum wage law and Workers' Compensation Law mandate through implication that a person who is put to work be treated as a worker.  Under ORS 656.005(30), a "'worker' means any person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, subject to the direct control of an employer."  The Court held that Claimant must reasonably expect remuneration to be qualified as a worker, and in this case, since the employer told Claimant that he would not be paid for his pre-employment drive test, he had no reasonable expectation of remuneration.  Decision of the Court of Appeals reversed.  Order of the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed.