This article discusses the issues, rules and applications of workplace law. It covers topics such as employee vs contractor status, code of conduct, and grounds for dismissal.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running head: WORKPLACE LAW Workplace Law Name of the Student Name of the University Author Note
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
1WORKPLACE LAW Issue 1 This instant case presents the issue that whether Bob is considered to be an employee or he has gained the status of a contractor. Rule The laws relating to employment and the common law does not recognise the terms employee and contractor to be synonymous. Although both the terms implies an agent for the employer who carries out the work on behalf of the employer but it does not confer the same status upon them. A multi factor test has evolved under the common law, which provides for several factors with respect to which a contractor can be distinguished from an employee. This test owes its origin to the case ofReady Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497, which has formulated a threefold test for separating a contractor from an employee. One of the decisive factors that draws a difference between the employer and a contractor is the control that is exercised over the work. The work performed by a contractor is under the sole control of the contractor. However, the work performed by an employee depends upon the discretion of the employer and the employer is in full command over the task performed by the employee. Again the contractor is required to comply by the terms of the contract with the employer but other than that he is independent in his endeavours. Another factor deciding that draws a separation between a contractor and employee is the exclusiveness of the work performed. The employee is required to render their services to a single employer only. But the contractor might have more than a single client. A contractor has the freedom to extend services to more than one client.
2WORKPLACE LAW The timings during which the work is needed to be performed is the sole discretion of the contractor. However, the employees are not much independent in this respect. They are required to perform their job as directed by the employer. In case of the employees, the employer has the discretion to fix the shift timings of work. This is an important factor in the distinction of a contractor with an employee. The power of delegation is yet another factor in separating an employee from a contractor. The employees are bound to perform the job assigned to them by the employer by themselves only and they do not have the power to delegate. However, the contractors delegate the work and hire other individuals to perform the work. In separating an employee from a contractor the mode of payment of remuneration is alos a decisive factor. The employees are paid timely remunerations for the work they perform for the employer. However, the contractors however, are paid on the basis of the terms of the contract they have entered into with the employer. They are also paid with respect to the units of work performed. The Australian Business Number (ABN) is obtained by the contractors to issue invoices but it cannot be taken as a conclusive test for the recognition as a contractor. An individual needs to comply with the multi factor test to achieve the status of a contractor along with the obtaining of the ABN. The differentiation of the contractor from an employee has also been provided while deciding upon the case of Short v J W Henderson Ltd [1946] 62 TLR 427. In this case, four factors of differentiation with respect to the same has been provided by the court.
3WORKPLACE LAW Application In the given issue, Bob has been an employee in the RSL club for a number of years. The employer has made a request to Bob to avail an ABN to work as a contractor. This request has been made to process the operations of the bar by the contractor. Moreover, the obtaining of ABN has been effected, for the purpose of issuing invoices. This raises the question regarding the status of Bob. However, it can be contended that the availing of the ABN does not make a person contractor if he does not qualify the multi factor test. Hence, Bob cannot be conferred with the status of a contractor for the possession of ABN. The ABN does not confer upon Bob the status of a contractor as the control of the work that has been performed by Bob was lying with the Club. This does not make Bob qualify the control factor of the multi factor test. Bob cannot be considered to be a contractor, as he fails to qualify the control test. The exclusiveness of the work factor is also present in case of Bob. The services rendered by Bob is for the RSL club only, which is contradictory to the status of a contractor. This is because a contractor has the option of serving more than one client but in this case Bob is rendering services only to the RSL club only. Conclusion Bob is considered to be an employee as he has not gained the status of a contractor. Issue 2 The second issue that the given situation presents is that whether the employment contract is binding upon Bob, in case it is assumed that the Bob is an employee.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
4WORKPLACE LAW Rule The conduct of the employees and other aspects of the business is regulated by the Code of Conduct that the employer imposes upon their employees. This code indicates different rules and regulations bundled together by the employer to regulate the conduct and the behaviour of the employee. It also includes the conduct of the employees towards various aspects of the business including client handling, conduct towards other employees, resource management and other aspects of the dealings of the business. This code is implemented by the employer to regulate the activities of the business(Burgess & Strachan, 1999). The code is more of a tool, enabling self-regulation and should not be confused to be legal document. However, in case the employer requires the code to be legally enforceable, he may resort to a registration of the code to bind the employees towards it. The registration of the code will render it to be a legally enforceable document, which is binding upon the employees and the breach of which will attract a legal action. This code is only applicable to the employees. The contractors are not bound by the terms of this code. This is because of the fact that the employers are contractors are independent individuals and the employer does not have any control over them. Hence, the contractors are not held liable for the breach of the code of the conduct. The same has been discussed in the case ofNational Australia Bank Limited v Rice [2015] VSC 10. Application In the given issue, Bob has been an employee in the RSL club for a number of years. The employer has made a request to Bob to avail an ABN to work as a contractor. This request has been made to process the operations of the bar by the contractor. Moreover, the obtaining of ABN has been effected, for the purpose of issuing invoices. This raises the question regarding the status of Bob. However, it can be contended that the availing of the ABN does
5WORKPLACE LAW not make a person contractor if he does not qualify the multi factor test. Hence, Bob cannot be conferred with the status of a contractor for the possession of ABN. The exclusiveness of the work factor is also present in case of Bob. The services rendered by Bob is for the RSL club only, which is contradictory to the status of a contractor. This is because a contractor has the option of serving more than one client but in this case Bob is rendering services only to the RSL club only. The ABN does not confer upon Bob the status of a contractor as the control of the work that has been performed by Bob was lying with the Club. This does not make Bob qualify the control factor of the multi factor test. Bob cannot be considered to be a contractor, as he fails to qualify the control test. Hence, it can be conceived that as Bob has failed to qualify the multifactor test, he is still an employee. This will make the policies contained in the code of conduct to be binding upon him. Conclusion The employment contract is binding upon Bob, in case it is assumed that the Bob is an employee. Issue 3 The third issue in the given situation is whether Bob’s ground for dismissal is valid. Rule An employee is obligated to abide by the safety precautions to ensure the prevalence of a safe environment in the work place. As the employee is a party to the contract effecting his employment, the policies and the code of conduct is enforceable against him. This has been
6WORKPLACE LAW explained in the case ofGeyer v Downs [1977] HCA 64. The contravention of the policies contained in the code of conduct would incur a disciplinary action for the employee. Although theFair Work Act 2009 prohibits the unfair dismissal of the employee, but the dismissal for a gross misconduct is justified under this Act. The commission of a gross misconduct incurs a right for the employer to dismiss the employee (Stewart, 2013). Application In this situation, Bob has been accused to making sexually inappropriate comments and bullying to a co- worker namely, Iris. On being investigated, he provided lame excuses for the same. This can be regarded as a gross misconduct. Moreover, the code of conduct of the club restrains such actions and Bob has been given a training about the policies. This gives the employer a valid ground to dismiss the employee. Conclusion Bob’s ground for dismissal is valid.
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
7WORKPLACE LAW Reference Burgess, J., & Strachan, G. (1999). The expansion in non-standard employment in Australia and the extension of employers’ control. In Global trends in flexible labour (pp. 121- 140). Palgrave, London. National Australia Bank Limited v Rice [2015] VSC 10 Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497 Short v J W Henderson Ltd [1946] 62 TLR 427 Stewart, A. (2013). Stewart's guide to employment law. Federation Press. The Fair Work Act 2009