## Facts

- A.T. Williams Oil Company owned and operated a convenience store and gas station where Sylvia Tucker worked part-time as a cashier.
- Sylvia’s eight-year-old son, Jonathan Shane Tucker, frequently accompanied her to work at the store.
- Shane regularly performed odd jobs around the premises, including picking up trash, stocking cigarettes, and stocking bottles in a cooler.
- The store manager, Ken Schneiderman, directed Shane’s work and paid him about $1.00 for roughly 30 minutes to one hour of work.
- Schneiderman did not follow typical hiring steps for Shane (e.g., no employment application, no reporting for withholding or workers’ compensation purposes), and he paid Shane out of pocket rather than through the store’s ordinary payroll method.
- On December 1, 1983, while Shane was performing these odd jobs, he slipped on a sidewalk on the store premises and cut his hand.
- Shane (through a guardian ad litem) and Sylvia Tucker sued A.T. Williams in superior court for negligence, seeking damages tied to the injury.
- A.T. Williams moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing Shane was an “employee” under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act and therefore limited to workers’ compensation remedies.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found Shane was an employee injured in the course of employment, and dismissed the negligence action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina based on a dissent in the Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s jurisdictional findings and conclusion that Shane Tucker was an employee of A.T. Williams under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act when he was injured.
2. If Shane was an employee injured in the course of employment, whether the Workers’ Compensation Act provided the only remedy, leaving the Industrial Commission with exclusive jurisdiction and barring the superior court negligence action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed.
- The Court held that the trial court’s findings that Shane performed work in the course of A.T. Williams’s business for pay were supported by evidence and supported the conclusion that Shane was an employee at the time of the injury.
- Because the claim fell within the Workers’ Compensation Act, the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the negligence action was properly dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- When an injury claim is within the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Industrial Commission has exclusive jurisdiction and the superior court is divested of original jurisdiction over a tort claim against the employer.
- In a jurisdictional dispute between the Industrial Commission and the superior court, the trial court may find jurisdictional facts; those findings are binding on appeal if supported by competent evidence.
- An employment relationship may be shown by evidence that the worker performed tasks in the employer’s trade or business, did so at the direction of a manager with authority to hire, and expected or received pay.
- Failure to follow internal hiring procedures or payroll formalities (such as completing an application, reporting for withholding, or paying through regular payroll channels) does not, by itself, defeat employee status for workers’ compensation purposes.
- The parties’ labels or a manager’s denial of “hiring” are not controlling if the facts show a paid work arrangement benefiting the employer’s business.
- Minors are not excluded from workers’ compensation coverage merely because of age or informality of the arrangement; where the statutory conditions are met, the Act’s remedy is exclusive.

## Conclusion

Because the trial court’s supported findings showed that Shane Tucker performed paid tasks that furthered A.T. Williams’s store operations and was injured while doing that work, he was an employee covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act, which made workers’ compensation the only remedy and required dismissal of the superior court negligence action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


Lemmerman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co., 350 S.E.2d 83 (1986)