Workplace
1. Common Law
Common Law is used to interpret what the terms in the contract mean, especially when there is a dispute about the application of an Act or the contractual relationship in a case, which then may become part of a common law (Victoria Legal Aid 2009).
Besides, common law divides work relationship into two basic categories when the employment contract exists – contracts for service if the worker is an independent contractor and contracts of service if the worker is an employee (WorkCover Queensland 2012). Therefore, the common law is an ideal and relevant to decide Johnny’s relationship with Autumn Fashion Limited.
2. Control Test
The common law has developed a number of tests to determine work relationships, distinguishing one from another; hence the control test can be used to advise Johnny. The importance under the control test was the degree and actual exercise of control (Marshall 2006). Under the control test, one is an employee if he is subject to the employer’s control on the way he is supposed to perform his work.
Based on the facts of the case, Johnny have been given loading and dispatch work for over ten years, with Autumn Fashion Limited having control over his work schedule. There was a quota on the number of stock moved on a daily basis. In addition, it was required for Johnny to follow the work allocation instructions given to him daily.
3. Multi-Factor Test
Another common law test that can be used is the multi-factor test. This test is clearer as it consider a range of factors and several aspects of other test conclusively. Based on the conditions that Johnny had accepted with Autumn Fashion Limited; multi-factor test is used in several jurisdictions to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor (Employment Relations 2010).
3.1 Factors indicating that Johnny is likely to be an Employee
Based on the case of Hollis v Vabu , the courier was obligated to work and was not free to determine how he
Common Law is used to interpret what the terms in the contract mean, especially when there is a dispute about the application of an Act or the contractual relationship in a case, which then may become part of a common law (Victoria Legal Aid 2009).
Besides, common law divides work relationship into two basic categories when the employment contract exists – contracts for service if the worker is an independent contractor and contracts of service if the worker is an employee (WorkCover Queensland 2012). Therefore, the common law is an ideal and relevant to decide Johnny’s relationship with Autumn Fashion Limited.
2. Control Test
The common law has developed a number of tests to determine work relationships, distinguishing one from another; hence the control test can be used to advise Johnny. The importance under the control test was the degree and actual exercise of control (Marshall 2006). Under the control test, one is an employee if he is subject to the employer’s control on the way he is supposed to perform his work.
Based on the facts of the case, Johnny have been given loading and dispatch work for over ten years, with Autumn Fashion Limited having control over his work schedule. There was a quota on the number of stock moved on a daily basis. In addition, it was required for Johnny to follow the work allocation instructions given to him daily.
3. Multi-Factor Test
Another common law test that can be used is the multi-factor test. This test is clearer as it consider a range of factors and several aspects of other test conclusively. Based on the conditions that Johnny had accepted with Autumn Fashion Limited; multi-factor test is used in several jurisdictions to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor (Employment Relations 2010).
3.1 Factors indicating that Johnny is likely to be an Employee
Based on the case of Hollis v Vabu , the courier was obligated to work and was not free to determine how he