| Summary |
JURISDICTION - Whether employee or contractor - Preliminary investigation exclusively to deal with question of legal status of relationship between parties - Applicants invited by respondents to work on their farm - Meeting held involving parties and respondent's farm adviser (G") - Accountant ("M") involved in matter for both parties - G gave evidence parties discussed differences between employment relationship and contractual relationship at meeting - Applicants sought advice from M - M advised would obtain tax advantages through contractual relationship - Parties may have been clear about what they wanted to achieve, but were not clear about implications of different kinds of legal status - Document executed by parties looked like employment agreement - However, not clear parties actually understood significance of document - Documentation of relationship no way determinative of actual nature of relationship - At end of relationship parties acknowledged was an employment relationship - For rest of period was plainly no agreement was employment relationship - Fact applicants registered for GST and employed staff significant and suggested relationship contractual - Intention of parties not particularly helpful, as parties themselves not sure of nature of relationship - M gave evidence both parties knew relationship was contractual - Applicants still legally employees even though still registered for GST and able to issue invoices as if contractors - Authority found both parties uncertain about status of relationship - Matter finely balanced - Fact applicants employed staff completely irreconcilable with them being employees, coupled with advice from M and his conviction parties knew employment relationship not contemplated, weighed balance in favour of contractual relationship - Relationship not one of employment - Farm managers" |