Employer argued worker operated through company providing services to multiple clients
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a general protections application involving dismissal from a delivery business owner who alleged his employment was terminated by a furniture retailer in contravention of the general protections provisions.
The employer argued that he was not an employee but rather an independent contractor, and second, he was not dismissed.
The case required the FWC to examine whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor, and whether the worker had been dismissed.
The evidence established that the worker was the beneficial owner via a trust of a company that owned the business name Adelaide Delivery Services.
The company rented a 950 square metre warehouse and owned 10 delivery trucks, a van and a station wagon.
The company employed five drivers and five offsiders to collect and deliver goods, including lounges, beds and other furniture and provide house moving services. A contract mechanic was retained to service the vehicles.
The company also engaged a person to perform administrative duties and one other person to provide accounting support.
The worker spent the majority of his time, 20 to 30 hours per week, running the business and undertaking administrative activities.
The worker assisted with delivering goods and driving when they were short-staffed or an urgent order was received.
The...
word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word w...