P.E.R.C. No. 2010-1, NJ/State Judiciary (Mercer)

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2006-148 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission dismisses an unfair practice charge filed by the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO against the State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts. The charge alleges that the AOC violated the Employer-Employee Relations Act when it unilaterally implemented a program requiring freelance interpreters (FLIs) to sign professional service agreements(PSAs)which eliminated the possibility that the FLIs could become members of the collective negotiations unit currently representing FLIs that worked more than 288 hours. A Hearing Examiner recommended that the Commission find a violation of the Act. The Commission finds that FLIs that signed PSAs are independent contractors and therefore not public employees covered by the Act. ¶

This synopsis is not part of the Commission decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commission. ¶

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2006-148 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, attorneys (Steven W. Suflas, Of Counsel) ¶

For the Charging Party, Weissman & Mintz, LLC, attorneys (Steven P. Weissman, Of Counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On November 10, 2008, the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) filed exceptions to a Hearing Examiner’s report and recommended decision. H.E. No. 2009-4, 34 NJPER 361 (¶117 2008). In that decision, the Hearing Examiner recommended a finding that the AOC violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq., when it unilaterally implemented a program that eliminated the possibility that Free- Lance Interpreters (FLIs) who signed a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) could become members of the collective negotiations unit currently represented by the Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA). The Hearing Examiner also recommended that the unfair practice charge was timely filed. The Hearing Examiner recommended dismissing a charge that the AOC’s actions were motivated by anti-union animus. ¶

The CWA filed its unfair practice charge on December 7, 2005. The charge alleges that the AOC advised that FLIs who signed PSAs would be considered independent contractors and ineligible for inclusion in the CWA collective negotiations unit. The CWA contends that the AOC’s actions violate N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4a (1), (3) and (5).1/ ¶

On May 22, 2006, the Director of Unfair Practices issued a complaint and notice of hearing. On June 1, the AOC filed its answer generally denying that its actions violated the Act. The parties mutually agreed to postpone scheduling the hearing and pursued settlement discussions that were ultimately unsuccessful. On May 29, 2007, October 30th and March 18, 2008, Hearing Examiner Stuart Reichman presided over hearings during which Patricia Shukis Fraser, Assistant Director for the Office of Trial Services, and Joseph Orlando, Chief of Labor and Employee Relations, testified on behalf of the AOC. Two FLIs, Pilar Defrutos-Ojea and Marwan Abdel Rahman, testified on behalf of the CWA. ¶

On October 28, 2008, the Hearing Examiner issued his report and recommendations. On November 10, the AOC filed exceptions. On December 19, the CWA filed a response to exceptions. ¶

Findings of Fact ¶

The Hearing Examiner made extensive findings of fact (H.E. at 3-22). We adopt and incorporate those findings except as noted below. We also make supplemental findings. ¶

The AOC directly employs staff interpreters who are represented by the CWA. The AOC supplements staff interpreters with FLIs, who provide interpreting services on an as-needed basis, primarily for the Superior and Tax Courts, and occasionally for the Appellate and Supreme Courts. ¶

FLIs must pass a screening test to qualify for placement on the AOC’s FLI registry. Classification of interpreters is in descending order as follows: Master, Journeyman, and Conditionally Approved. The level of interpreter is determined by the AOC based on the results of the screening test. Once placed on the registry, FLIs receive training on, and are subject to, the Code of Professional Conduct for Interpreters, Transliterators, and Translators. The terms of an FLI’s employment were initially governed by the “Guidelines for Contracting Free-Lance Interpreters in the Superior Court,” which were approved on February 23, 1995. ¶

The AOC offers assignments on a rotating basis among the available interpreters for each language. Exceptions may be made to the rotation policy if a case requires highly specialized skills. Much of the work is performed in the courthouse, but occasionally FLIs are needed for probation visits outside of the courthouse. Additionally, FLIs are needed for telephone interpreting, usually for assignments of 30 minutes or less. Telephone interpreting can be done from any location, generally an FLI’s home or office. FLIs are paid pursuant to a uniform schedule of rates based on an FLI’s classification. A separate schedule is set forth for telephone interpreting. ¶

In New Jersey State Judiciary, P.E.R.C No. 2003-88, 29 NJPER 254 (¶76 2003), we affirmed the Director of Representation’s order that FLIs who annually worked 288 hours or more2/ were eligible to vote in a representation election and to be represented in a unit of professional employees of the AOC which included the full-time staff interpreters. The Director found that such FLIs were public employees entitled to seek representation under the Act. The AOC did not consent to the election because it believed that the FLIs were independent contractors rather than public employees covered by the Act. We concluded that given the factual record, common law agency principles and the Act’s policies and purposes, FLIs who annually worked 288 hours or more are public employees entitled to seek representation under the Act. ¶

We relied heavily upon the Guidelines in determining that the FLIs were public employees entitled to representation under the Act. The Guidelines established work criteria pertaining to the FLIs and covered many issues including the type of interpreters who may be used; rotation of assignments; exceptions to the rotation policy; schedule of rates; cancellations; double payments; verification and evaluation of services; negotiation of fees; refusal of assignments; and working as a private consultant rather than through an agency; pay; hours; evaluation procedures; and disciplinary review procedures. Judiciary, 29 NJPER at 260. We noted that our holding in Judiciary was limited to “this group of petitioned for employees, these facts and [the Act].” Id. at 262. ¶

After we issued Judiciary, the FLIs voted to be represented by the CWA and it was certified as the majority representative. Subsequently, the AOC determined that if FLIs were going to be employees for purposes of representation under the Act, they should be employees for all purposes. The AOC attempted to have the FLIs placed on the centralized payroll system, but asserts that was not possible since the system was compatible with payments in hourly increments only, rather than the half-day and full-day increments that the FLIs are paid.3/ The AOC raises additional concerns such as whether FLIs would be covered by the Workers’ Compensation laws or eligible for indemnification under the Tort Claims Act. It was unclear whether certain taxes should be withheld from the pay of FLIs. Another disputed issue was whether the FLIs would have to undergo the traditional five days of employee training and criminal background checks required of AOC employees. An additional concern was whether the FLIs would be subject to the Judicial Code of Conduct, which would prohibit FLIs from working for anyone outside of the Judiciary, since many FLIs provide interpreting services for private attorneys, municipal and federal court, and courts in other states. ¶

On July 2, 2004, during negotiations, the AOC advised the CWA that the Guidelines would be rescinded. In August 2004, the AOC rescinded the Guidelines. The AOC informed the CWA that all terms and conditions for the represented FLIs would be included in the collective negotiations agreement, which was signed by the AOC in September 2004. When the collective negotiations agreement was entered into, the AOC and CWA jointly agreed to take a two-year snapshot of FLIs who worked 288 hours. Thereafter, the collective negotiations agreement provided that eligibility for membership in the unit would be determined by the AOC through its submission to the CWA in June of each year of a list of names of FLIs who worked at least 288 actual hours in the preceding calendar year. ¶

In August 2004, all FLIs who did not meet the 288-hour minimum threshold were required to execute a PSA if they wished to remain eligible to receive assignments from the AOC. The PSA identified the FLI as an independent contractor.4/ The PSA requirement was conveyed to the CWA during the negotiations in July 2004. However, in a June 5, 2005 letter notifying the CWA of FLIs who were eligible for inclusion in the unit, Orlando advised the CWA of the AOC’s position that any FLI who had previously signed a PSA would not be eligible for inclusion in the negotiations unit. Thus, once an FLI executed a PSA, the AOC treated that FLI as an independent contractor and ineligible for unit inclusion at any point going forward, even if that FLI worked the requisite number of hours in a subsequent year. Only FLIs initially included in the unit at the time it was formed and who maintained the minimum 288-hour threshold annually remained in the negotiations unit. ¶

While the Hearing Examiner found that certain work conditions for FLIs differed after the recision of the Guidelines and upon the implementation of the PSAs, we part with his finding that although the Guidelines were rescinded, the AOC still follows most of the principles and operational directives contained therein. The record shows that the AOC still follows the more general policy objectives contained in the Guidelines such as the Policy Statement, objectives, management of free- lance interpreting services, and types of interpreters who may be used. However, with the recision of the Guidelines and the implementation of the PSAs, there have been changes made that go to the heart of the work criteria under which FLIs perform their duties. These changes will be discussed more fully below. ¶

ANALYSIS ¶

The Hearing Examiner found that the AOC’s current system, which excludes from the negotiations unit any FLI who did not work the requisite amount of hours and signs a PSA, was a unilateral change in work conditions in violation of N.J.S.A. 35:13A-5.4a(1) and (5). The AOC has filed nine exceptions, the majority of which assert that an unfair practice did not occur because with the recision of the Guidelines and implementation of the PSAs, many of the findings made by us in Judiciary have changed, and those changes require our reconsideration of the factors weighed in Judiciary and a finding that the FLIs are independent contractors and not employees. The AOC further excepts to the Hearing Examiner’s findings on the basis that it has a managerial right to subcontract bargaining unit work and the FLIs are independent contractors not subject to collective negotiations. Moreover, the AOC excepts to the finding that the CWA’s unfair practice charge was timely filed. ¶

The CWA responds that the Hearing Examiner properly found that the policies and procedures set forth in the Guidelines remain in effect and that FLIs remain central and integral to the mission of the AOC. Specifically, it alleges that the changes made regarding the right to leave prior to the completion of an assignment is a distinction that exists on paper only, the right to use substitutes is limited, the absence of formal evaluation or disciplinary procedures does not diminish the pervasive control the AOC exercises in other critical areas, and FLIs still do not have the opportunity for entrepreneurial gain or loss while working for the AOC. The CWA does not dispute the AOC’s managerial prerogative to subcontract out work, but contends that whether FLIs are employees covered by the Act has no impact on the right of the AOC, or any public employer, to subcontract. Finally, the CWA asserts that its charge was timely filed. ¶

We begin our analysis with the AOC’s exceptions, which assert that with the recision of the Guidelines and implementation of the PSAs, many of the findings we made in Judiciary have changed, and those changes require our reconsideration of the factors in Judiciary. In Judiciary, in determining whether FLIS were employees or independent contractors, we considered the following common law factors: ¶

1. the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished; ¶

2. the skill required; ¶

3. the source of the instrumentalities and tools used; ¶

4. the location of the work; ¶

5. the duration of the relationship between the parties; ¶

6. whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; ¶

7. the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; ¶

8. the method of payment; ¶

9. the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; ¶

10. whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; ¶

11. whether the hiring party is in business; ¶

12. the provision of benefits; and ¶

13. the tax treatment of the hired party. ¶

Judiciary at 21, Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751. (1989). No one factor is determinative. Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 362 U.S. 396, 400 (1960). We also considered two additional factors, one proposed by the Judiciary and one proposed by the CWA. The factor proposed by the Judiciary was “whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relationship of master and servant. Restatement (Second) of Agency, 220(2)(i). The factor proposed by CWA was whether the putative independent contractor has a “significant entrepreneurial opportunity for gain or loss.” Corporate Express Delivery System v. NLRB, 292 F.3d 777, 778 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Given the AOC’s exceptions, we will reexamine the relevant factors for determining whether the FLI is an employee or independent contractor. ¶

The Regular Business of Hiring Party and Whether the Hiring Party is in Business ¶

In Judiciary, we found that the courts have a commitment to equal justice and equal access that requires the AOC to employ qualified interpreters. We found that “[a]ll interpreters constitute an integral, indispensable part of the Judiciary’s business of providing justice.” Judiciary, at 23. This principle still holds true, however, it is important to highlight that the AOC directly employs a staff of full-time interpreters, and supplements such staff with FLIs. Indeed, Orlando testified without contradiction that one of the reasons there has been a reduction of FLIs is because certain FLIs have been hired as AOC employees, and membership in the negotiations unit has increased on that basis. The AOC’s services would not cease without the FLIs. However, the AOC might operate less efficiently. This factor neither strongly supports a finding of independent contractor nor employee status.5/ ¶

The Hiring Party’s Right to Control the Manner and Means by Which the Product is Accomplished; The Extent of the Hired Party’s Discretion Over When and How Long to Work; and Whether the Hiring Party Has the Right to Assign Additional Projects to the Hired Party ¶

Since many aspects of these three different factors overlap, they will be discussed together. When we initially considered these factors, we found that all three supported a finding of employee status. However, many findings pertaining to these factors have changed with the implementation of the PSAs. ¶

We initially found that the Guidelines did not require FLIs to accept assignments, but they did not grant FLIs unrestricted freedom to refuse assignments either. We further found that the Judiciary operated under the basic assumption that all FLIs were available for all types of assignments and that FLIs will accept assignments unless they have a prior commitment. We focused on the part of the Guidelines that set forth that FLIs are expected to take assignments that may not be especially profitable and to take assignments, despite reservations about their abilities, when a court representative repeats a request that the FLI provide the service. Moreover, the Guidelines explicitly stated that while an FLI could cancel an assignment due to exigent circumstances, except under extraordinary circumstances, it was not appropriate to cancel an assignment in order to take a more lucrative assignment, and FLIs could be subject to “a variety of forms of discipline” for noncompliance with the cancellation policy. The PSA contains no expectations about an FLI’s availability, nor is there a strong recommendation against refusing an assignment for a more lucrative assignment. Shukis Fraser testified that the FLIs are free to decline any assignment subject only to the caveat that FLIs who refuse all assignments may be removed from the Registry. Her testimony was not contradicted. ¶

In Judiciary, we found that if an assignment is not completed before the contracted for period ends, the FLI can be required to stay if he or she does not have another commitment. Under the PSA, it is “totally within the discretion” of the interpreter to stay if an assignment runs longer than the amount of time originally agreed to, regardless of whether the FLI has another commitment. While the CWA argues that, in practice, there has been no significant change on this issue after the recision of the Guidelines, the fact remains that under the PSA it is completely within an FLI’s discretion to continue working on an assignment if it runs longer than the contracted for period. Notably, Rahman testified that when an assignment runs beyond the contracted for period, he uses his own judgment to determine the importance of an assignment and whether to continue working on that assignment, or to leave for another assignment. ¶

The Guidelines also contained an explicit prohibition against an FLI sending another interpreter for an assignment. Under the PSA, an FLI can retain a substitute registered interpreter to perform an assignment provided prior arrangement of the Vicinage Coordinator of Interpreting Services is obtained. ¶

The Guidelines referred to a mechanism for inviting feedback on an FLI’s performance from judges and others who presided over hearings, and provided a sample assessment/verification form. Currently, the AOC does not supervise or monitor the performance of the FLIs nor does it evaluate them. It is also significant that the PSA does not provide for any form of discipline for the FLIs. The CWA asserts that the AOC formed a committee to address workplace issues that arise with FLIs, such as inappropriate dress, chronic lateness, and fraternizing with parties, among other issues. However, the formation of a committee to discuss issues that likely arise equally with other individuals appearing in the courts such as attorneys, does not equate to supervision, evaluation or discipline of FLIs. These factors now all support a finding of independent contractor status. ¶

The Source of the Instrumentalities and Tools ¶

The tools needed to perform interpreting services include equipment that has a microphone, a receiver and transmitter, as well as dictionaries and note pads. When we initially considered this factor in Judiciary, we found that the Judiciary did not require FLIs to provide any equipment, but did expect them to have their own equipment. We found that given the absence of any requirement that FLIs supply their own equipment and the willingness of the Judiciary to supply equipment, we did not believe that the factor strongly suggested that FLIs were independent contractors, but also did not strongly suggest that FLIs are employees. Currently, the PSA requires that FLIs provide their own equipment. However, there was inconsistent testimony on this issue. Shukis Fraser testified that FLIs must provide their own equipment. Defrutos-Ojea testified that “mostly” the AOC supplies the equipment, while Rahman testified that in some counties he uses the AOC’s equipment, while in others he uses his own equipment. This factor neither strongly supports a finding of independent contractor nor employee status. ¶

Location of Work ¶

When we initially considered this factor in Judiciary, we found that FLIs provided their interpreting services in the courts before judges “subject to their oversight and evaluation.” We found that the FLIs working in the courts differ from house painters who work at a customer’s home, but who are not rendering services that are subject to an employer’s control and supervision as part of its normal business. Judiciary, at 29. As discussed more fully above, FLIs are no longer subject in the same way to the AOC’s control. Moreover, FLIs also provide telephone interpreting, which can be done from an FLI’s home or office.6/ FLIs also provide interpreting services on probation visits conducted outside the courthouse. This factor now supports a finding of independent contractor status. ¶

Significant Entrepreneurial Opportunity for Gain or Loss ¶

When we initially considered this factor in Judiciary, we found that this factor strongly supported a finding of employee status. We found that FLIs were barred from negotiating over the fees to be earned or even from engaging in behavior that could be perceived as an attempt to negotiate; they cannot hire other workers to provide interpreting services; they cannot determine how much time to spend on an assignment; and they are expected to take assignments that may not be especially profitable. While FLIs are still subject to a uniform schedule of rates and are contracted for predetermined periods of time, under the PSAs FLIs can obtain a substitute for an assignment. Moreover, FLIs are free to decline any assignment for a potentially more lucrative assignment, subject only to the caveat that FLIs who refuse all assignments may be removed from the AOC Registry. ¶

The record also illuminates that some FLIs operate their own interpreting agencies and contract with other interpreters to provide services for federal courts, attorneys in private practice and other private sector enterprises. As private business owners, they incorporate their businesses, take business tax deductions, have business cards and advertise. The two witnesses produced by the union who are on the AOC FLI registry both own interpreting agencies. Defrutos-Ojea testified that in addition to personally appearing on the AOC FLI registry, her agency appears separately on the registry. When her agency contracts with the AOC, she sets the rate and is not subject to the uniform schedule of rates for FLIs. Her profit is determined by the difference between what the AOC pays her agency and what the agency pays the interpreter. While Defrutos-Ojea testified that she spends 90% of her time personally interpreting for the AOC, Rahman testified that he personally provides interpreting services for the AOC only 25 - 30% of the time. Generally, entrepreneurs supply their own equipment and tools, may hire subordinates, and work for more than one party. Corporate Express Delivery System v. NLRB, 292 F.3d 777, 778 (D.C. Cir. 2002). This factor now supports a finding of independent contractor status. ¶

The remaining factors of the test essentially remain unchanged from our initial consideration in Judiciary. Interpreting services require a specialized skill and FLIs’ relationships with the AOC are continuing. FLIs submit vouchers to the AOC for payment and are issued a Form 1099 at the end of the calendar year to reflect annual income.7/ FLIs are paid by vendor check and do not receive benefits. The AOC believes it is hiring independent contractors, a belief that is seemingly shared by the FLIs by virtue of them being paid by vendor checks rather than paychecks with withholdings deducted. On balance, a reconsideration of the factors in light of the changed circumstances supports a finding of independent contractor status for FLIs who sign a PSA.8/ ¶

The Hearing Examiner found, based on the AOC denying admission into the negotiations unit of any FLI who signed a PSA, a violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1) and (5). An employer independently violates subsection 5.4a(1) if its action tends to interfere with an employee’s statutory rights and lacks a legitimate and substantial business justification. Orange Bd. Of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 94-124, 20 NJPER 287 (¶25146 1994); Mine Hill Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 86-145, 12 NJPER 526 (¶17197 1986)(emphasis added). An employer violates subsection 5.4a(5) when it unilaterally alters prevailing terms and conditions of employment that are mandatorily negotiable. Galloway Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Galloway Tp. Ed. Ass’n, 78 N.J. 1 (1978)(emphasis added). Given our finding that FLIs who signed a PSA are not employees, but rather independent contractors, there cannot be a violation of either 5.4a(1) or (5). Here, the AOC made fundamental changes to the work criteria of FLIs who signed a PSA, which converted those FLIs from employees to independent contractors no longer eligible for representation under the Act.9/ Changed circumstances can warrant changes in eligibility for inclusion in a negotiations unit. Passaic Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 77-019, 3 NJPER 34 (1976); see also Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 86-140, 12 NJPER 513 (¶17192 1986), Morris Bd. Of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 89-42, 14 NJPER 682 (¶19287 1988). ¶

We note, however, that while the AOC’s actions in this case may not equate to a violation of the Act, when an employer takes unilateral action in determining employees’ eligibility for representation, it does so at its own peril. If the FLIs were found to be employees eligible for representation, there would have been a violation of the Act. Morris, State of New Jersey, P.E.R.C. No. 91-93, 17 NJPER 246 (¶22112 1991). An approach that promoted earlier and more open dialogue with the CWA regarding the AOC’s position that FLIs who signed a PSA would be ineligible for unit inclusion might have better served the parties. Moreover, that approach would have been more consistent with the AOC’s own statement in its brief that it is undisputed that it enjoys a harmonious relationship with the CWA. Alternatively, the AOC could have come back to this agency to address, in a non- adversarial manner, the issues it encountered in implementing the directives of Judiciary. Either of the alternative approaches would have furthered the Act’s goals and could have potentially saved both parties years of litigation costs. Cf., Hunterdon v. CWA, 116 N.J. 322, 338 - 39 (1989). ¶

The AOC’s exceptions with regard to timeliness and its managerial right to contract out bargaining unit work are rendered moot. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The unfair practice charge against the AOC is dismissed. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chairman Henderson, Commissioners Colligan, Joanis and Watkins voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. Commissioner Fuller abstained. Commissioners Branigan and Buchanan were not present. ¶

ISSUED: August 13, 2009 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ These provisions prohibit public employers from “(1)[i]nterfering with, or restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by this act; . . . (3)[d]iscriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term and condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act;. . . and (5)[r]efusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative.” ¶

2/ The 288-hour benchmark for determining employment regularity was arrived at in the Director of Representation’s decision, on the basis of 1/6 of the total number of hours worked by a full-time 35-hour-per-week employee, exclusive of 13 holidays. D.R. No. 2003-13. ¶

3/ Due to system limitations, the AOC has to manually process two checks for the represented FLIs for the CWA to receive its dues. ¶

4/ The identification of the FLI as an independent contractor in the PSA is not determinative. Rather, the decision of whether FLIs who sign a PSA are independent contractors is a multi-factor, fact-sensitive determination. Judiciary at 21, Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751 (1989). ¶

5/ The Hearing Examiner, possibly misguided by Judiciary, found this factor to be primary in reaching the conclusion that FLIs are employees rather than independent contractors. However, all factors must be assessed and weighed and no one factor is decisive. Ward, 362 U.S. at 400. ¶

6/ While Defrutos-Ojea testified that she does not provide telephone interpreting, Rahman testified that he does and that he attended a telephone interpreting seminar conducted by the AOC. ¶

7/ A Form 1099 is a form promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service and is used to prepare and file tax information to report various types of income other than wages, salaries and tips, for which a Social Security Administration Form W- 2 is used instead. ¶

9/ This holding extends only to FLIs not represented by the CWA who have signed or will sign a PSA. We do not have a complete enough record to make a determination regarding the status of FLIs who are in the negotiations unit and whose work criteria are governed by the collective negotiations agreement. ¶