pounds of chickens caught and the number of Catchers providing chicken catching services for the particular job. See Beacon Flag Car, 910 A.2d at 108; Pavalonis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 57 Pa.Cmwlth. 289, 426 A.2d 215, 217 (1981). Second, the Joint Venture did not withhold taxes from the Catchers’ compensation. See Krum v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 689 A.2d 330, 332 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). Third, the Joint Venture did not provi group or dictate the manner in which the work must be completed; rather the Catchers worked together as a group to divide tasks and complete each job without supervision to accomplish the goal of loading live chickens. See York Gazette Co. v. Bureau of Employment Securities, Dep’t of Labor and Indus., 28 Pa.Cmwlth. 410, 368 A.2d 1314, 1315 (1977) (<HOLDING>). It is clear from the record that the Joint
holding that duty to ensure that independent contractor performs its work in safe manner arises if the general contractor retains some control over the manner in which the independent contractor performs its work holding that if the putative employee has the discretion to adopt the means and methods he wishes to accomplish the required work he is an independent contractor holding that a general contractors right to forbid the work from being performed in a dangerous manner and the fact that he would have stopped the work and required protective equipment had he seen the employee of the independent contractor not using such equipment merely showed the possibility of control not actual control holding that putative employers control over result but not manner in which work was performed is factor that weighs in favor of independent contractor status holding that even though the relationship lasted over a six year period the yeartoyear contracts between the parties weighed in favor of independent contractor