When hiring individuals for work, businesses must carefully distinguish between employees and independent contractors, as each type of relationship carries distinct legal rights, obligations, and entitlements.
For instance, if an employee is wrongly classified as an independent contractor, they may still be entitled to protections under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). A recent case, *Aspire 2 Life Pty Ltd v Tidmarsh [2024] FWCFB 28*, highlights this issue. In this case, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) upheld a decision that a worker, initially engaged as an independent contractor, was actually an employee entitled to the general protections provisions of the FW Act.
Case Overview
The worker in question provided disability care services for Aspire 2 Life Pty Ltd under contracts that labeled her as an independent contractor. When the worker claimed that Aspire had unlawfully dismissed her by terminating these contracts, Aspire objected, arguing that as an independent contractor, she was not entitled to the same protections as an employee.
However, the Deputy President of the FWC found that, despite the contracts, the worker was effectively integrated into Aspire’s business like an employee. The decision was based on the test established by the High Court in *CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1*, which focuses on the legal rights and obligations defined in the contracts rather than the broader conduct of the parties.
Although the contracts included terms typical of independent contractor arrangements—such as the requirement for the worker to have an ABN, submit invoices, and pay her own taxes and superannuation—the Deputy President concluded that these terms were outweighed by others that pointed to an employment relationship. For example, Aspire controlled the worker’s hours, pay, and how the work was performed, all indicators of an employer-employee relationship.
Aspire appealed the decision, but the Full Bench of the FWC upheld the ruling. The Full Bench agreed that Aspire’s control over the worker’s duties and its role in sourcing and managing client services were central to the employment relationship. The Bench also noted that the contracts restrained the worker from subcontracting or working for competing businesses, further solidifying her status as an employee.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case underscores the legal risks associated with misclassifying employees as independent contractors. Employers should be mindful of the potential for workers to claim entitlements under the FW Act if their status is incorrectly categorized.
Furthermore, it’s important to note that from 26 August 2024, the FW Act will introduce a new test for determining whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor. This new test will go beyond the terms of the contract, requiring an assessment of the practical reality and true nature of the working relationship. The change is likely to increase uncertainty in this area, as it reintroduces some of the complexities that existed before the *Personnel Contracting* decision.
Given these developments, employers should re-examine their current arrangements with contractors to assess potential risks. In some cases, it may be prudent to reconsider the nature of these relationships to avoid future legal complications.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this content. Please seek professional legal advice for specific concerns.
