Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty LtdCitation:[2022] HCA 1Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:09 Feb 2022Case Number:P5/2021Read more

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty LtdCitation:[2022] HCA 1Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:09 Feb 2022Case Number:P5/2021Read more

The Court held that the second appellant was an employee of the respondent, as the substance of the relationship, including the respondent's control and the integration of the second appellant into the respondent's business, outweighed the contractual label of 'self employed contractor'.

Parties
Applicant: Second Appellant (Backpacker); Respondent: Respondent (Labour Hire Company)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law / Judgment
Outcome
Second appellant found to be an employee of the respondent.
Legal Topics
Employee Vs Independent Contractor, Labour Hire Arrangements, Nature of Employment Relationship
Employment Law Industrial Law Employee Vs Independent Contractor Labour Hire Arrangements Nature of Employment Relationship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Second Appellant (Backpacker)

Applicant

Respondent (Labour Hire Company)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second appellant was an employee or independent contractor of the respondent
  2. 2 Effect of written contract labelling second appellant as 'self employed contractor'
  3. 3 Significance of control and integration in determining employment status

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the second appellant was an employee of the respondent, as the substance of the relationship, including the respondent's control and the integration of the second appellant into the respondent's business, outweighed the contractual label of 'self employed contractor'.

Court Disposition

Second appellant found to be an employee of the respondent.

Orders

  • Declaration that the second appellant was an employee of the respondent.
  • Appropriate orders as to costs.