Want to listen to the full episode and all our other episodes?
Hearsay allows you to fulfill your legal CPD requirements every year.
Our yearly subscription is only $299/year.
With a yearly subscription, you can access all of our episodes AND every episode we release over the next year.
Working 9 to 5, redefined
What area(s) of law does this episode consider? | Employment law, specifically (1) the legal difference between an employee and contractor, and (2) considerations for employers when implementing flexible working arrangements such as working from home practices. |
Why is this topic relevant? | The main source of income for most Australians is their employment. But the nature of work is changing – and the growth of the gig economy is an example of this trend. So too is the growing practice of working from home, which has been adopted by (or been forced upon) more and more businesses, in Australia and around the world in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. |
What legislation is considered in this episode?
| Both Commonwealth and State legislation governs employment law, including:
|
What cases are considered in this episode? | Hollis v Vabu (2001) HCA 44: this case focused on the nature of the employment relationship. Vabu traded under the business name of ‘Crisis Couriers’, which had 20-30 bicycle and motorcycle couriers. In December 1994, Mr Hollis was leaving a building where he had picked up a parcel. He was knocked over by a cyclist, wearing a Crisis Couriers jacket, after stepping onto the footpath and suffered injuries as a result. While previously control was the sole criterion in determining the true nature of a relationship of employment, the High Court held instead that the totality of the relationship between the parties must be considered, including factors such as remuneration (including whether there are invoices, whether the contractor is registered for GST, whether tax is being withheld), who determines the hours the contractor will work, who provides the equipment etc. As Nicola explains, the determination is a balancing exercise between these indicia. Ultimately the High Court held that the bicycle courier was an employee of Vabu thus finding Vabu vicariously liable for the act of the courier who knocked down Mr Hollis. Amita Gupta v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd; Uber Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 5008: Mrs Gupta was an Uber Eats driver. In early 2019, her account was deactivated by Uber. Mrs Gupta argued that the decision by Uber to suspend, then permanently block her access to the app constituted unfair dismissal. In April 2020, the full bench of the Fair Work Commission decided that Mrs Gupta, and Uber drivers in general, were not employees as they lacked some of the “essential hallmarks of an employment relationship”. While some indicia pointed to an employment relationship, Uber did not have significant control over the drivers, who could choose if and when to pick up jobs. |
What are the main points? |
|
What are the practical takeaways? |
|
Show notes | Safe Work NSW – Working from home workplace health and safety checklist |
You must be a subscriber to access this content.
You must be a subscriber to access this content.