Queensland University of technology |
Employee-Contractor Case Study |
By Monil Mehta |
Word Count: 1450 |
The main purpose of this report is to distinguish and provide evidence to the fact that Anne Parish, a former employee at Ace Accident Insurance in Cairns was treated unfair by her former employer. In employment relations all employees should be treated and remunerated fairly, irrespective of them being an independent contractor or an employee (Fair Work Act, 2009).
In this report it shall be determined whether Anne Parish was an ...view middle of the document...
Summary of common law test* |
Factor | Indicative of employment | Indicative of independent contracting |
Do you have control over the way you perform a task? | | Yes |
Do you supply or maintain your tools or equipment? | | Yes |
Do you work standard hours? | | No |
Are you paid according to task completion, rather than receiving wages based on time worked? | | Yes |
Do you incur any loss or receive any profit from the job | | Yes |
Do you accept responsibility for any defective or remedial work that was your doing? | | Yes |
Are you free to work for others at the same time? | No | |
Do you accept that work lasts for the term of each particular task or contract? | No | |
Do you have the right to employ or subcontract any aspect of your work to another person? | No | |
Do you have the right to employ an apprentice or trainee in the execution of contracts? | No | |
Do you understand the arrangement as a contract for services? | | Yes |
Is tax deducted by your hirer from your pay? | | No |
Do you provide your own public liability and sickness and accident Insurance Cover | | Yes |
Do you receive paid holidays or sick leave? | | No |
Do you render tax invoices for payment? | | Yes |
Do you file GST returns? | | Yes |
Source: Australian Business Lawyers & Advisors, 2011
Summing up the common law test Anne has a contract for service, which makes her an independent contractor. Anne Parish had signed a contract for employment with Ace Insurance Company which stated her duties and responsibilities as a contractor. She was paid on a commission basis only on every policy sold. Anne was also insistent of the fact that she won’t go to the office on a daily basis as she was self-employed. She controlled her remuneration and had her own transport. All of these points suggest that Anne had been a contractor to Ace Accident Company.
The multi-factor test is not always accurate and depending from case to case it shall be determined and different indicia should be valued differently upon different situations.
3.0 Argument for Anne Perish Being a Contractor
In Anne Parish’s case taking into consideration all the factors of the employability test it is revealed that she has a contract for service, only for which she is remunerated. Therefore she is considered as an independent contractor. But there are many criteria’s such as tax cut, reporting relationship and liability of sick leave on Anne which indicates her an employee as well.
4.1 Duties Performed and Control
The amount of input put and the reporting relationship between Anne and Ace Accident Company is evident to Anne being performing duties as like the employees of a company. Anne had to provide a report on a daily basis about her productivity and efforts put to sell policies. Although being an independent contractor she had no legal obligations to establish reporting relationship: Zuijs v Wirth Bros Pty Ltd. (1955). She was...