Case Study: Employment Law - Independent Contractor and Employee

This case study analyzes two employment law scenarios. The first case examines the distinction between an independent contractor and an employee, focusing on whether an employer was correct in not providing notice to a contractor based on the terms of their agreement. The analysis considers factors like mutuality of responsibility, control, and the right to subcontract. The second case explores wage entitlements, determining whether an employee is due payment for services rendered, particularly concerning the frequency of performed tasks and the application of the Fair Work Act 2009. The case study applies legal principles to these scenarios to determine the correct outcomes regarding employment status and payment obligations.

RUNNING HEAD: CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author Note

1
CASE STUDY
Response to case study 1:
Issue:
The main issue regarding the provided case is whether William’s boss was right
regarding the information of being an independent contractor and an employee.
Rule:
An employee is an individual who gives services in favour of the employer exchanging
consideration that should be adequate. The adequate consideration will be the salary in exchange
for service provided by the employee. The term independent contractor is an individual
providing services to their clients for some specified fee.
The following test can be taken into account for determining whether the worker
providing service is an independent contractor or an employee:
Mutuality of responsibility: this is a type of requirement based on the fact that contractual
employment does not require wages in exchange of effort but also it provides a promise that
should be mutual for performing in the future.
The magnitude of control: details of the control about the task carried out by a worker is a good
indicator regarding the employment relationship.
Personal relationship: the term relationship can be defined in such a way that any employees be
obliged to the duty of fidelity and loyalty for the employer.

2
CASE STUDY
Right to subcontract or delegate: badges, uniforms, and logos always suggest the relationship
of employment.
These factors indicate easily the relationship between the employee and an independent
contractor.
Application:
Applying the multifactor test, it can be understood that the boss was right about William of being
a contractor. It was not essential to serve any notice as William signed the contractual terms
agreeing to serve as an independent contractor and not as an employee. According to the
conditions of the agreement stated as the van drivers are agreed to work as a contractor rather
than an employee. When the requirement of his service was terminated, accordingly it is lawful
not to inform Deliman about the stopping of his services.
Conclusion:
Thus according to the above mentioned factors, it is concluded that William’s boss was right
serving the information for not serving any notice to Deliman as William was an independent
contractor.

3
CASE STUDY
Response to Case Study 2:
Issue:
The main issue regarding the provided case is whether Sam is entitled to receive any payment for
his regular performance in his work.
Rule:
The wages of an employee will be deducted from the payable amount according to subsection
323(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The authorisation of the deduction should be given in writing
principally for the benefit of the employee. The employer must be paid the amount of wages to
the employee related to the performance of work. They should be paid full amount except in the
case as provided in section 324. It is mentioned in the subsection 2 of the Fair Work Act 2009
that the money should be paid by one or in a combination.
Application:
According to the application of the above mentioned rules in the provided case, the
employer of Sam should pay him according to his work he has performed in the hospital. He will
be entitled to get the payment for bathing the patients once a day as he refused to pay for twice a
day.
Conclusion:
Form the above facts concluded it is observed that Sam is entitled to get paid for the performance
of his task.

4
CASE STUDY