| Summary |
JURISDICTION – Whether applicant employee or independent contractor – Written employment agreement (“EA”) implemented two years into relationship – EA stated contract for services – Applicant initially undertook services through her company – Later applicant invoiced respondent personally – Applicant provided invoices for work undertaken – Employee (“Z”) paid applicant upon receiving invoices – Z claimed did not notice at time that paid applicant for services on public holidays – Z became concerned about applicant’s invoices and ran check – Meeting held to discuss invoices – Respondent concluded applicant overcharged respondent – Applicant provided revised invoices – Dispute not resolved – Respondent terminated contract – Applicant raised grievance – Authority found EA, invoicing, contracting arrangements and parties’ discussions supported finding parties labelled relationship as contract for services – Authority found real nature of position was contract for services – Found applicant independent and autonomous in work arrangements – Found applicant engaged for skill set to carry out work required – Found arrangements were what applicant wanted at time – Found no set hours – Found applicant took on at least one other client – Found applicant dealt with taxation and invoiced for payments monthly – Found applicant’s role was to provide specialised services integral to respondent’s business – Found applicant’s activities completely different to respondent’s core business – Found although applicant carried out some administrative tasks, applicant took them on as own initiative and not acting on any instruction – Found applicant carried out own business, as shown by monthly invoices, charging at hourly rate and applicant responsible for own tax – Found applicant had fundamental knowledge of commercial arrangements – Found applicant relied upon duties and nature of tasks, but those were disputed – Found not inconsistent with contracting arrangement if applicant had swipe card and PIN for business access, which was disputed in any case – Found not determinative that applicant had company credit card for overseas business trip where provided services for respondent – Found applicant sometimes wore branded clothing, but this was voluntary for all staff and also given to clients – Found not determinative that applicant had phone extension and email address through respondent – Found applicant’s business cards with respondent’s logo not determinative - Found not determinative that applicant charged for public holidays because respondent argued was mistake and had not checked whether applicant actually worked because applicant did not work in same office – Found applicant contractor not employee – No jurisdiction |