Law of Business Organisation Assignment (Doc)

Running head: LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANISATION
Q & A on Business Law
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANISATION
Table of Contents
Answer to question (a):..............................................................................................................2
Issue:.......................................................................................................................................2
Rules:......................................................................................................................................2
Application:............................................................................................................................3
Conclusion:.............................................................................................................................3
Answer to question (b):..............................................................................................................3
Issue:.......................................................................................................................................3
Rules:......................................................................................................................................3
Application:............................................................................................................................4
Conclusion:.............................................................................................................................5
Answer to question (c):..............................................................................................................5
Issue:.......................................................................................................................................5
Rules:......................................................................................................................................5
Application:............................................................................................................................6
Conclusion:.............................................................................................................................6
Reference:..................................................................................................................................7

2LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANISATION
Answer to question (a):
Issue:
The main issue of the case is to determine whether Athena could able to be a party of valid
contract of employment or not.
Rules:
The subject matter of the case is based on valid contractual terms of employment and sham
contracting. In certain situation when an employer states the employee that the official status
of the employee is an independent contractor and asked for making an agreement on that, the
agreement could be treated as the sham contracting. It is to be noted that the term
independent contractor is different from the term employee. An independent contractor is
getting appointed by way of verbal contract and could not claim for the facilities like an
employee (Willis & Mills, 2017). The contract of independent contractor is dealt by the law
of agency. However, in Fair Work Ombudsman Vs Centennial Financial Services (2010) it
has been observed by the Court that an employer is restricted to held an employee to be
treated as independent contractor under sham contracting arrangement. Under section 901
and section 902 of the Workplace Relation Act 1996, any misrepresentation regarding
employment relationship is being prohibited and it has also been observed that an employer
could not threatened an employee to sign the sham arrangement or could not pressurised the
employee to do so (Mathews & Roufeil, 2017). The same principle has been followed in the
case of Riverwood International Australia Pty Ltd v McCormick [2000] FCA 889 where the
court has stated that an employer is bound to maintain all the policies that has been stated
under the agreement and any agreement should be treated as sham agreement if it is sham in
nature. In Fair Work Ombudsman v Happy Cabby Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] FCCA 397, it has
been observed the alleged company has treated its driver as independent contractor in lieu of