SSR 61-6. DOMESTIC SERVICE BY FAMILY MEMBER

A and B, who are sister and brother, have maintained a common household

on B's farm since 1927. B has always done the farm work, and A has kept

house and cooked for him and has received her room and board in return. It

is alleged that in July 1956, A became an employee of B under an oral

agreement. Under the alleged agreement, A was to be paid $100 a month for

the same services that she had formerly performed without pay. Both before

and after the agreement A worked at her own discretion. She was not

required to work any specific hours; she received no instructions from B

as to how to do her work; and B had no right to give A instructions or to

dismiss her.

Section 209 of the Social Security Act provides that the term "wages"

means all remuneration for employment, with certain exceptions are not

material here.

Section 210(j) of the Social Security Act provides that the term

"employee" means any individual who, under the usual common-law rules

applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the

status of an employee. The guides for determining, under such rules,

whether an employer-employee relationship exists are found in Regulations

No. 4, § 404.1004(c). Generally, these guides provide that such a

relationship exists if the person for whom the services are performed has

the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services,

not only as to the result to be accomplished by the work but also as to

the details and means by which that result is accomplished.

relationship exists are found in Regulations

No. 4, § 404.1004(c). Generally, these guides provide that such a

relationship exists if the person for whom the services are performed has

the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services,

not only as to the result to be accomplished by the work but also as to

the details and means by which that result is accomplished.

In determining whether an employment relationship exists in those cases

where a member of one's family performs domestic service in his home, the

existence of a contract of employment, the dependency status of the

alleged employee, the work history of the alleged employee, and the

details as to remuneration are major factors to be considered. In several

cases where services had previously been performed without remuneration

under a family cooperative arrangement and where there was no change in

the method of operation after the alleged employment relationship began,

the courts have ruled that no employment relationship existed. See Norment

v. Hobby, 124 F.Supp. 489 (1953); Thurston v. Hobby, 133 F.Supp. 205

(1955); Folsom v. O'Neal, 250 F.2d 946 (1957).

In the present case, the relationship between A and B was a close family

cooperative arrangement based on mutual love and affection. A had

performed her services without pay since 1927 and had received a home and

support in return. There was no change in the relationship or in A's

duties after July 1956, when she allegedly became an employee. B at no

time had any right to direct A in the performance of her services or to

dismiss her. These factors clearly negate the existence of the right to

control necessary to establish the common-law relationship of employer and

employee. The payment of money, though a factor in establishing an

employer-employee relationship, is not sufficient of itself to establish

such a relationship.

B at no

time had any right to direct A in the performance of her services or to

dismiss her. These factors clearly negate the existence of the right to

control necessary to establish the common-law relationship of employer and

employee. The payment of money, though a factor in establishing an

employer-employee relationship, is not sufficient of itself to establish

such a relationship.

Accordingly, it is held that A was not the employee of her brother and,

therefore, any payments made to her by her brother are not wages within

the meaning of section 209 of the Social Security Act.