Catchers did not receive a fixed rate of remuneration, but rather the Joint Venture determined compensation on a job-by-job basis depending upon the number ure did not exercise control over the manner in which the Catchers divided the work to be accomplished or performed the task of catching the chickens and loading them into cages and/or onto trucks. The Joint Venture was interested in the end result only — the catching and loading of live chickens. Finally, and of great significance, it appears from the record that the Catchers were free to decline or accept any chicken catching job that was made available by the Joint Venture without repercussions. See Danielle Viktor, Ltd. v. Dep’t of Labor and Indus., Bureau of Employer Tax Operations, 586 Pa. 196, 229, 892 A.2d 781, 801 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we note that there is no evidence
holding that the transfer of all rights interests and control in property assigned was an effective assignment occurring at the time the assignment was perfected not later when proceeds paid holding that because drivers provided services to company on jobbyjob basis and each assignment was taken or rejected strictly at drivers prerogative drivers were independent contractors gjiven the fluidity of these arrangements holding that even if the individual who signed the mortgage assignment lacked the authority to do so the assignment would still be binding on mers because he purported to be authorized holding assignment of a mortgage was not subject to article 9 holding plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the validity of an assignment from mers to bac because she was not a party to the assignment and the assignment did not affect her underlying obligation to make timely payments