dissenting.
The Employment Security Law, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-601 through 48-671 (Reissue 1993), provides for the payment of unemployment compensation benefits to otherwise eligible individuals having qualified for such through prior employment, §§ 48-624 and 48-625. The act defines employment as any “service performed . . . for wages or under any contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied.” § 48-604(1). The majority determined that Dernier was not entitled to unemployment compensation because he did not receive “wages” or engage in a “contract of hire.” I dissent.
The majority determined that a person performing services under a contract, but not receiving wages, is providing services under a contract of hire unless the person is an “independent contractor.” The majority concedes that Dernier was “performing services” for World-Herald under a contract, but determined Dernier was not under a “contract of hire” because he was an independent contractor.
While there is no single test to determine whether one is an employee or an independent contractor, several factors must be considered. Larson v. Hometown Communications, Inc., 248 Neb. 942, 540 N.W.2d 339 (1995); Hemmerling v. Happy Cab *231Co., 247 Neb. 919, 530 N.W.2d 916 (1995). We have recognized, however, that while no one factor is determinative, control is the most important factor to be considered in determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor. Larson, supra; Hemmerling, supra; Eden v. Spaulding, 218 Neb. 799, 359 N.W.2d 758 (1984).
In the instant case, the contract states that World-Herald is interested only in the results obtained by Dernier and that the manner and means by which Dernier fulfills his contractual obligations are left solely to him. The reality of the agreement, however, is otherwise. In fact, World-Herald retained the right to control, and exercised considerable control over, the methods and means by which Dernier performed his services.
First, World-Herald did not issue written handbooks, policies, or guidelines dictating the manner for performing specific tasks; yet, Dernier was prohibited from placing other materials in the racks and was required to insert advertising materials in the news racks. Second, Dernier determined whether he wanted to hire additional employees and was responsible for obtaining his own substitutes; yet, these decisions were effectively determined by World-Herald because they had the right to increase the size of Dernier’s orders and they consistently required Dernier to increase his sales. Third, Dernier was free to place additional news racks and sell additional copies to dealers within his territory; yet, World-Herald determined the location of the racks, the price of the newspapers, whether any other materials could be placed in the racks, and what advertisements were to be inserted in the newspapers. Fourth, Dernier was free to negotiate the price at which he sold the newspapers to dealers; yet, World-Herald effectively made this decision because if Dernier was to make a living, he had to sell the papers at a greater cost than what World-Herald was charging him for the papers. Fifth, Dernier was allowed to distribute the newspapers as he saw fit; yet, aside from the fact World-Herald required Dernier to place enough newspapers in the racks to avoid being “sold out,” World-Herald dictated the times and places he could pick up the newspapers. Sixth, World-Herald exercised no control over Dernier’s operation of the vehicle he used to transport newspapers or the route which he traveled in servicing his ter*232ritory; yet, World-Herald effectively determined such issues, as World-Herald dictated the locations of the racks and the times and places Dernier could pick up newspapers. Seventh, Dernier performed all billing and collection for the newspapers; yet, World-Herald determined the price of the newspapers and required Dernier to provide World-Herald with a weekly list of single copy accounts and locations in his territory. In addition, Dernier’s compensation consisted of the difference between the price Dernier paid World-Herald and the price at which he sold the newspapers. Thus, billing and collection procedures were effectively dictated by the whims of World-Herald’s policies and procedures. Finally, Dernier was not subject to typical performance evaluations; yet, World-Herald required Dernier to consistently increase the number of newspapers sold and provide a weekly list of accounts and locations. Therefore, Dernier was not an independent contractor, but, rather, an employee entitled to unemployment compensation.
While the majority recognized a number of factors indicating that Dernier exercised the most control, reality dictates that World-Herald actually controlled the situation. I would therefore conclude that Dernier was not an independent contractor and reverse the decision of the district court.