Documents - Ministry of Labour & Employment

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

EMPLOYMENT LAW1
Issue
The issues are as follows:-
 Would Michael still be considered to be an employee of QRS?
 If Michael would be considered to be an employee, then what shall be the claims that
may be made by Michael to Fair Work Commission?
Rule
Presently, the ‘multi-factor test’ is utilized by courts as per the law of the nation of
Australia in order to determine that whether an individual may be regarded as an independent
contractor or an employee. Certain elements should be analyzed in relation to the ‘multi-factor
test’. Firstly, it is ‘personal relationship’, that is, the relationship should be such that that a
responsibility of fidelity and loyalty should be owed by the employee in favor of the employer.
Secondly, it is ‘mutuality of obligation’, that is, the contract relating to employment should not
only mandate delivery of work in exchange of wages, but also mutual and reciprocal promises in
connection to future performance. Thirdly, it is ‘degree of control’, that is, exhaustive control in
relation to a worker is regarded as a solid indicator that a particular employment relationship
exists. Fourthly, it is delegation or sub-contracting, that is, if somebody else is engaged by an
individual in order to complete the work, then such right or conduct is considered to be a solid
indicator that such an individual is not an employee. Lastly, it may be mentioned that logos,
badges and uniforms generally suggest that a particular employment relationship exist.
The case of Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd. [1986] HCA 1 shall be considered
to be a significant case in this regard. In this case, the truckers and the sniggers utilized vehicles
of their own, decided the hours in connection to their work, and the payment was made to them

EMPLOYMENT LAW2
in accordance to the quantum of timber that was delivered in favor of the mill. No guarantee
regarding work was made to the truckers and the sniggers and they had the freedom to pursue
other work, if the climate or any other instances prohibited them to do their work at sawmill.
Brodribb enjoyed the authority of general supervision, however, it had no control in relation to
the manner of performance of tasks by the truckers and truckers. The workers had the freedom to
delegate or substitute work to other persons, if it was not possible for them to work. It was stated
by the court that both the trucker and the snigger shall not be regarded as employee and hence,
Brodribb was not vicariously accountable in relation to the negligence caused by the snigger or
privately accountable to trucker.
The case of Tattsbet Limited v. Morrow [2015] FCAFC 62 shall be considered to be a
relevant case in this regard. The court considered the several factors in relation to the instances
of the case and applied the ‘multi-factor test’. It was acknowledged by the court that several
factors existed that indicated the presence of a relationship of employment. In the case of
Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty limited [2006] HCA 19, after the application of the ‘multi-factor
test’ in relation to the instances of the case, it was held by the court that Boylan shall not be
accountable in relation to the actions of the independent contractor, as the contractor was not
considered to be an employee.
In the case of Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44, it was held that the courier,
irrespective of the issue that whether he may be regarded as an independent contractor or as an
employee, performed the work that represented the principle, and therefore the principal might
be accountable in relation to the actions of the courier.
In the case of Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Holdings Pty Ltd [2015]
FCAFC 37, it had been said that labor may be provided in many forms other than in the form of