Workplace Law

First, consider the contractual basis of Sassy’s work relationship with Day2Day. Is she an employee? Use relevant cases.

The issue is to determine whether Sassy is an employee of Day2Day Technology Pty Ltd, or an independent contractor.

It is difficult to differentiate between employee and independent contractor. They work under different contracts, independent contractor works under a contract of service (commercial contract) whereas employee is work under a contract for service (employment contract).

The distinction between employee and independent contractor is critical and the tests used to determine the existence of employment generally referred to as the control test, integration/ organisational test, in business/ economic reality test, Ready Mixed Concrete Test and multi-factor test (Nairns Janice 2004, 90).

However, among all the tests, multi-factor testas it views all factors in totality and others are flawed and vague. This test was used in the case of Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 63 ALR 513which the high court held that the control test was an important factor but not decisive. In Sassy’s case,there is an element of control over her job by Day2Day as she works at fixed hours from 9am to 5pm on Monday to Friday. Although control test is fulfilled as derived from the case of Federal Commissioner of Taxation v J Walter Thompson (Aust) Pty Ltd (1944) CLR 227 whereby the courts held that the worker is an employee so long detailed and extensive control over a person in employment exists, but she is paid on an hourly basis for her hours of work in remuneration mode. Since control test is not decisive, other factors take into consideration such as equipment and tools, Sassy uses Company’s vehicle for running errands.

Furthermore, employment relationship might exist on an application of the multi-factor test as illustrates in the case of Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21 which the court focused on the control aspect of the...