After 200 hun­dred years of legal deci­sions on the ques­tion of who is an employ­ee and who is a sub­con­trac­tor, the courts still sur­prise us.

A recent Full Fed­er­al Court deci­sion on the issue pro­vid­ed a very adverse out­come for the hap­less employ­er. It involved 5 insur­ance sales rep­re­sen­ta­tives oper­at­ing in 3 dif­fer­ent roles for an insur­er – one for 20+ years. Sig­nif­i­cant­ly, they were employed pur­suant to a detailed con­tract that stat­ed explic­it­ly that they were inde­pen­dent con­trac­tors. At least 2 of the con­tracts were in the name of a fam­i­ly com­pa­ny and not even the individual.

They gen­er­al­ly worked in a par­tic­u­lar geo­graph­i­cal area. They report­ed to a Region­al Man­ag­er who was an employ­ee of the com­pa­ny and they were reward­ed exclu­sive­ly on com­mis­sion. Leads were pro­vid­ed by the com­pa­ny and they were not remu­ner­at­ed for any admin­is­tra­tive work they did, just their sales activities.

The court found the key ele­ments in deter­min­ing that these work­ers were employ­ees was the right of the com­pa­ny to con­trol the organ­i­sa­tion of their work and the deploy­ment of the var­i­ous agents in their team. They also had some train­ing pro­vid­ed by the com­pa­ny. Impor­tant­ly, the work­ers were not enti­tled to engage any­one else who sells insur­ance on their behalf.

There­fore, the court found, their duties were “…to be car­ried out through the per­son­al effort of the indi­vid­ual agent and only by them.”

Ulti­mate­ly, the two fac­tors which were deter­mi­na­tive were the inabil­i­ty of the work­er to del­e­gate his work and with sig­nif­i­cant involve­ment the com­pa­ny in the day-to-day activ­i­ties of the worker.

The court ulti­mate­ly found that they had “…no real inde­pen­dence of action or true inde­pen­dence of organisation.”

Impor­tant­ly, the court over­rode the fact that two of the con­tracts were between the insur­ance com­pa­ny and a fam­i­ly com­pa­ny set up by two of the work­ers as the pre­ferred struc­ture to oper­ate their affairs.

The result of this find­ing was that the com­pa­ny became respon­si­ble for the ret­ro­spec­tive pay­ment of annu­al leave, sick leave and long ser­vice leave. These enti­tle­ments amount­ed to approx­i­mate­ly $500,000.

If you want to ensure that the rela­tion­ship is found to be one of principal/​subcontractor (ie. not employ­ment), the sim­ple mes­sages to be learnt from this case are: 

  • even where there are writ­ten con­tracts that state that the rela­tion­ship is not one of employ­ment – that will not deter­mine the issue;
  • the work referred to in the sub­con­tract should be able to be car­ried by a third par­ty engaged by the sub-con­trac­tor (albeit with your approval of the par­tic­u­lar individual); 
  • you are enti­tled to con­trol what work is to be done and the time lim­its and cost involved, but not as to how the work is to be car­ried out;
  • prefer­ably, the work­er will be required to pro­vide their own plant or equip­ment; and/​or
  • the work­er will be paid on the result and not mere­ly for the time spent working.

Ulti­mate­ly, when engag­ing con­trac­tors it remains a com­plex issue and we rec­om­mend that care­ful advice be sought.

For fur­ther infor­ma­tion, please contact:

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Match­ing Par­ent­ing Orders to Risk: Craft­ing orders to prop­er­ly address the dan­gers in a fam­i­ly law matter

The focus of any par­ent­ing mat­ter being dealt with in the Fed­er­al Cir­cuit and Fam­i­ly Court of Aus­tralia is what…

Amend­ments to NCC 2022 com­menc­ing on 1 May 2025

Back­groundThe Aus­tralian Build­ing Codes Board (ABCB), a joint ini­tia­tive of the Com­mon­wealth and state and ter­ri­to­ry gov­ern­ments togeth­er with the build­ing…

Choose Your Own Respon­dent in Gen­er­al Pro­tec­tions Dis­missal Disputes

Usu­al­ly when one par­ty is tak­ing legal pro­ceed­ings against anoth­er the respon­dent enti­ty needs to be care­ful­ly iden­ti­fied. It can…

In the News

Press Release | New Part­ner Appoint­ment — Mark Glynn

With over two decades in the indus­try, Mark is a recog­nised front-end con­struc­tion lawyer spe­cial­ist with­in the build­ing and con­struc­tion indus­try. Mark…

Press Release | New Asso­ciate Appoint­ment — Hugo Mahony

“As we con­tin­ue to expand in line with our strate­gic vision, Hugo’s deep knowl­edge and expe­ri­ence in Com­mer­cial, Cor­po­rate, IP…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Police and Safe­Work are inves­ti­gat­ing MAFS, but the show keeps win­ning the rat­ings race”, pub­lished on ABC News on 6 April 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Police and Safe­Work are inves­ti­gat­ing MAFS, but the show keeps win­ning the rat­ings…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information