| Summary |
JURISDICTION – Whether employee or independent contractor – Applicant claimed employee at all material times – Respondent argued principal-contractor relationship at all material times – Applicant shareholder and employee of own company (“MOW”) – MOW provided design services to respondent – Applicant and respondent’s director (“S”) orally agreed applicant would carry out sales duties – No written employment agreement – Applicant worked on respondent’s premises, however could work from home – Applicant’s work hours determined by obligation to be present at show home – Remuneration arrangement based on commission on sales being offset against payments made pursuant to retainer – S paid MOW $60,000 retainer with commissions being offset against that amount until balance reached – S provided applicant company vehicle – S paid applicant’s mobile account – Applicant responsible for own tax payments and GST – Authority found applicant had extensive background in business management and able to distinguish between employees and contractor – Found parties’ oral agreement showed intention to establish principal and contractor relationship – Found respondent exercised control over applicant by requiring applicant to use respondent’s name, materials, and sales techniques – Found, however, not unusual to expect communication and co-operation between parties when in business of sales – Found applicant had freedom to work from home – Found applicant in business on own account as director of MOW – Found no employment relationship - Applicant contractor |