Employment Law: Independent Contractor vs Employee and Serious Misconduct

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

EMPLOYMENT LAW1
Question 1
Issue
The primary issue in the given scenario is that whether the boss of William is right about
the fact that William is a contractor and not an employee.
Rule
A rule in this regard was provided in the case of Kaseris v Rasier Pacific V.O.F [2017]
FWC 6610. In this case the distinction has been made in relation to an independent contractor
and an employee. In this particular case, the organization known as Uber claimed that the drivers
of the organization are not employees, instead they are considered as independent contractors.
The organization Uber, has framed and implemented service agreements in relation to all the
drivers of the organization. This agreement unambiguously omit the presence of any kind of
employment association. Instead, it creates an independent contractor affiliation. In order to
define the nature of the relationship of the drivers with the Uber organization, certain points were
stated in this particular case. It was held that Mr. Kaseris, the Uber driver, implemented thorough
control in relation to the hours for which he did his job. He had the availability of the option to
reject any particular trip and had the liberty to select the manner in which he may operate his car.
Mr. Kaseris made available equipment that was owned by him. He had the option and liberty to
complete and fulfil any other job or work as per his own wish. It was his responsibility to deal
with various tax related matters. Mr. Kaseris never had the permission to exhibit any kind of
Uber names, symbols, colors and logos. He never had to wear any particular services during
service hours. It was also stated that the necessary ‘work-wages bargain’ did not exist in the
arrangement. Considering all the aforementioned factors, a conclusion was reached. The

EMPLOYMENT LAW2
conclusion was that an independent contractor affiliation existed, instead of an employment
association.
A rule in this regard was provide in the case of Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) HCA 44.
The main concern or issue in this case is in relation to the feature of the correlation of the
employment. In this case, an individual named Hollis was struck by a courier on a bicycle. The
courier who struck Hollis, at the time of the incident was wearing the uniform of Vabu. The
primary question in this regard was whether this particular courier was an employee of Vabu, or
not. In this case, certain factors were considered. These factors established the fact that the
courier riding the bicycle was an employee of the Vabu organization. He cannot be considered as
an independent contractor. The decision in this particular case stated that the bicycle courier may
not be considered as an independent contractor. Instead, the bicycle courier shall be considered
as an employee of the Vabu Pty Ltd. The bicycle courier was employed in the organization as
“Crisis Couriers”. The factors as stated by the High Court are as follows:-
1) The bicycle couriers of the organization were not making available any kind of expert labor or
any kind of labor that needed special credentials or experiences. A bicycle courier may not be
capable to create an independent and self-determining career as a service provider or a free-
lancer, or to establish any kind of goodwill or reputation as an experienced bicycle courier.
2) Couriers had none or absolutely petite control in relation to the manner and ways regarding
the performance of their job or work. Instead, Vabu vigorously controlled and administered the
work of every courier. The point that there was a presence of an apportionment and course of
the various deliveries, which were made by the fleet controller of Vabu, was given certain
importance.