BSL202 Workplace Law: Assignment

10 Pages2205 Words287 Views

Workplace Law (BSL202)

Added on 2020-05-16

BSL202 Workplace Law: Assignment

Workplace Law (BSL202)

Added on 2020-05-16

BookmarkRelated Documents

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnWorkplace LawCase of Athena(Student Details: )

Workplace LawQuestion (a)IssueWhether Athena would be able to be a party to a valid contract of employment, or not? RuleAn employment contract or contract of employment shows the presence of relationship ofemployee and employer. It is basically a written agreement (or an oral one in certain cases), which specifies the terms and conditions on which the individual agrees to perform the duties as are controlled and directed by the employer, in payment of the agreed upon salary or wage (Murray, 2016). ApplicationIn the given case study, an employment contract had been formed between Athena and Chinatown where she was given certain responsibilities and had to work for the restaurant. This work was taken up on a full time basis. She was asked to resign from the employment in writing.This was an oral employment contract. Upon the resignation from employment, this contract of employment came to an end. There is nothing to show that there was illegality or lack of any element to hold that Athena was not a party to the contract of employment. Conclusion Thus, Athena had a valid contract of employment drawn with Chinatown. Page 2

Workplace LawQuestion (b)IssueWhether Athena was still the employee of Chinatown, upon her resignation, or not?RuleAn employee and independent contractor are two roles which an individual can play in course of their work. Both these categories give rise to different rights and different liabilities. There are certain differences in between the two as the independent contractor’s work can be delegated but the same cannot be done for an employee (CCH, 2010). The employer is held responsible for the work of the employee, as the principle of vicarious liability operates. The independent contractors working hours cannot be regulated by the parties employing their services; however, for employees, the working hours can be regulated by the employers. Such factors make it crucial to make differentiation amongst the employees and the independent contractor (Giliker, 2010). For making the differentiation between the two roles, the common law provides certain tests, which are very helpful. The control test given under Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd [1955] HCA 73 is helpful. Based on this test, the control employed by one person over the other defines the presence of relationship (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2018). The next test is integration test, which provides that the degree of the integration of a person in the business of the employer has to be seen to decide on this matter. In Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills(1949) 79 CLR 389 it was provided that wearing uniform was the proof of employer employee relationship being present. Page 3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Analysis of Athena's Employment Status and Breach of Fair Work Act

|2012

|77

Workplace Law Assignment Questions based on Case Study 2017

|11

|2056

|221

Workplace Law

|2064

|115

Employment Law: Analysis of a Case Study on Contracting and Sham Contracting

|2102

|113

Workplace Law

|1847

|372

Law of Business Organisation Assignment (Doc)

|2281

|21

BSL202 Workplace Law: Assignment