Legal Issues in Jensen v Cultural Infusion (Int) Pty Ltd

0
Employment Law

1
In the article titled ‘Actors fluff portrayal as employees’, the legal issue which is raised is
whether the three actors hired by the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet comes
within the scope of the employment. In this paper, the key legal issues presented in the case
pursuant to the
Fair Work Act 2009 will be discussed. A detailed discussion will be made on
the legal issues raised in the article to understand their impact on the parties. Lastly, it will
be concluded whether the decision of the court was fair or unfair in this case.
In the case of
Jensen v Cultural Infusion (Int) Pty Ltd [2018] FCCA 2137, three actors filed a
suit under section 357 by arguing that the employer misrepresented them by an
independent contracting agreement. The state-based department argued that the actors
were not employees of the company; instead, they were independent contractors hired by
the company. The suit is also filed under section 358 by arguing that the company is
dismissing to engage as independent contractors (Austlii, 2018). As per this section, an
employer must not dismiss or threaten to dismiss an individual who is an employee and
perform particular work for the employer to engage the individual as an independent
contractor or work under a contract for service. These were the two major legal issues
raised in the case of
Jensen v Cultural Infusion (Int) Pty Ltd based upon which the court
provided a judgement in favour of the state-based department (.
In order to understand these legal issues, it is important to understand the difference
between an independent contract and an employee. The rights of employees are recognised
under federal and state employment and labour laws whereas it is not the case with
independent contractors (Stafford, 2016). The independent contractors operate as their
own business whereas employees work for the business of the employer. The independent
contractors are engaged for a specific project or time period whereas this is not the case