Appeal, No. 9, May T., 1963, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, No. 5, Commonwealth Docket, 1960, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Bureau of Employment Security v. Hecker & Co. Judgment affirmed.
Alexander Conn, for appellant.
Morley W. Baker, Assistant Attorney General, with him John F. Finney, Assistant Attorney General, and David Stahl, Attorney General, for Bureau of Employment Security, appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, O'brien and Keim, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN
This is an appeal from the affirmance by the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County of an order of the Bureau of Employment Security denying appellant's petition for reassessment of its unemployment compensation contributions. Appellant is a partnership which is registered and licensed to engage in business as a broker and dealer in securities. The individuals in question are "registered representatives" who are licensed to sell securities on appellant's behalf.
The issue before us is whether these registered representatives are included within the scope of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law so that appellant is required to make contributions on their behalf. The following facts are pertinent to this inquiry.
The Pennsylvania Securities Act provides that a registered dealer must file an application on behalf of an individual who wishes to sell securities.*fn1 If the application is satisfactory, the individual is given a commission to sell securities on behalf of that dealer.*fn2 This commission, which must be renewed annually, is revocable at the will of either the dealer or the individual.
The stipulated facts before us reveal that appellant provides the registered representatives with a desk in its office, clerical and secretarial services, statistical and market analysis reports, use of a telephone and general office supplies. The registered representatives are paid strictly on a commission basis but are allowed to draw against future commissions to pay any other expenses which may arise. They have no set working
hours, are not required to attend sales meetings, and need not meet any particular quotas. Appellant supplies the registered representatives with its business cards, advertisement is done in appellant's name and all orders must be approved by appellant. If appellant refuses to accept an order, the registered representative may then deal with another broker.
The two aspects of this relationship stressed by appellant are (1) that the registered representatives are free from control with regard to the performance of their employment, and (2) that the registered representatives develop a following among some of their customers which they can transfer to another brokerage firm in the event of the cessation of their employment with appellant. Appellant had formerly made unemployment returns on behalf of the registered representatives but stopped the practice in reliance on a federal ...