Workplace Law
Jane’s case appears to be focusing on the Tests for Employment. In order to determine whether a worker is an employee or not, working under a contract of employment in contrast to another type of contract is extremely important. The vicarious liability of an employer is a liability linked to an employee’s actions in the course of course of employment. This liability does not apply to workers who are contractors. Legislative protections often depend on the worker being an employee.
In order for Jane to determine the true nature of her contractual relationship with Total Mechanic Management Services Pty Ltd (TMMS), the law applies a common law tests that approaches the issue by categorizing work relationships, distinguishing one from another where work relationships will be divided into two broad categories, contract of service, and all other type of work. An employee works under a contract of service or contract of employment, whereas an independent contractor works under a contract for services. Subsequently, a number of tests have been developed for the purposes of common law to distinguish the work relationship. They include: • The control test; • The integration/organization test; • The in business/economic reality test; • The Ready Mixed Concrete test; and • The multi-factor test.
The control test
The control test underlines two important elements which include the nature of the control as well as the degree of the control.
In the case of Federal Commissioner of Taxation v J Walter Thompson (Aust) Pty Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 227, the court concluded the producer exercised a detailed and extensive control of the artists during rehearsals and the final performance. This was necessary in order for each artist to co-operate with the others in the team so as to bring about a result largely determined by the producer. Thus the court held that the actors were employees. Besides that, in the case of Zujis v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd (1945) 70
In order for Jane to determine the true nature of her contractual relationship with Total Mechanic Management Services Pty Ltd (TMMS), the law applies a common law tests that approaches the issue by categorizing work relationships, distinguishing one from another where work relationships will be divided into two broad categories, contract of service, and all other type of work. An employee works under a contract of service or contract of employment, whereas an independent contractor works under a contract for services. Subsequently, a number of tests have been developed for the purposes of common law to distinguish the work relationship. They include: • The control test; • The integration/organization test; • The in business/economic reality test; • The Ready Mixed Concrete test; and • The multi-factor test.
The control test
The control test underlines two important elements which include the nature of the control as well as the degree of the control.
In the case of Federal Commissioner of Taxation v J Walter Thompson (Aust) Pty Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 227, the court concluded the producer exercised a detailed and extensive control of the artists during rehearsals and the final performance. This was necessary in order for each artist to co-operate with the others in the team so as to bring about a result largely determined by the producer. Thus the court held that the actors were employees. Besides that, in the case of Zujis v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd (1945) 70