The issue at hand is whether John and Debra Smyth are employees of Mark Pty Ltd. In this case, the Smyths worked from September 2014 to May 2017 for Mark Pty Ltd which is engaged in the business of repairing trucks. The Smyths operated a call center in their own home where they did accident reporting service as a part of the business of Mark Pty Ltd. They answered telephone calls from a range of sources and even dealt with the sales representatives of Mark Pty Ltd. Before delving into an analysis of the facts, applicable legal principles and rules have to be examined. To determine whether a person is an employee, the multi-factor test has been adopted several times by the courts. This means that no single issue or factor for employment will
…show more content…
In the problem, the Smyths are said to “perform radio base or call center work for Mark Pty Ltd and no one else”. This indicates a sense of loyalty in the relationship since the Smyths only work exclusively for Mark Pty Ltd. If they were not employees and instead independent contractors, then the Smyths most probably work for other persons as well rendering the same type of services. The factor of loyalty and fidelity assures the employer that his employees devote all their time and attention to the work given to them (Brosnan & Walsh, 2013). Similarly in the case of the Smyths, they give all their time and attention to the work they do for Mark Pty Ltd.
Third, another telling feature of the employment status of the Smyths is the fact that Mark Pty Ltd supplies all of their tools and equipment for the job. In the usual order, independent contractors use their own tools and equipment for the job since they also have to cater to other clients. In the case of the Smyths, however, they solely work for Mark Pty Ltd which also supplies all of their tools ad equipment such as computers, telephone machines and others. Supplying the Smyths with all their tools and equipment is definitely contrary to the most notable feature of independent contractors (Foyd et. al, …show more content…
If the worker has a small capital outlay for the job, then he is an employee. An example of a case involving a relatively small capital outlay expended by the employee is Hollis v Vabu. In this case, the bicycle couriers were required to acquire their own bicycle, at their own cost, and also pay for the regular maintenance of their bicycles. The court held that they were still employees even though they had to bear the costs of providing for and maintaining the bicycles because capital outlay for the bicycles was relatively small (Foyd et. al, 2017). Similarly, in the case of the Smyths, they do not appear to have bought any tangible assets for their work, which means they have a small capital outlay or none at all. Everything was provided by Mark Pty Ltd for
In the problem, the Smyths are said to “perform radio base or call center work for Mark Pty Ltd and no one else”. This indicates a sense of loyalty in the relationship since the Smyths only work exclusively for Mark Pty Ltd. If they were not employees and instead independent contractors, then the Smyths most probably work for other persons as well rendering the same type of services. The factor of loyalty and fidelity assures the employer that his employees devote all their time and attention to the work given to them (Brosnan & Walsh, 2013). Similarly in the case of the Smyths, they give all their time and attention to the work they do for Mark Pty Ltd.
Third, another telling feature of the employment status of the Smyths is the fact that Mark Pty Ltd supplies all of their tools and equipment for the job. In the usual order, independent contractors use their own tools and equipment for the job since they also have to cater to other clients. In the case of the Smyths, however, they solely work for Mark Pty Ltd which also supplies all of their tools ad equipment such as computers, telephone machines and others. Supplying the Smyths with all their tools and equipment is definitely contrary to the most notable feature of independent contractors (Foyd et. al, …show more content…
If the worker has a small capital outlay for the job, then he is an employee. An example of a case involving a relatively small capital outlay expended by the employee is Hollis v Vabu. In this case, the bicycle couriers were required to acquire their own bicycle, at their own cost, and also pay for the regular maintenance of their bicycles. The court held that they were still employees even though they had to bear the costs of providing for and maintaining the bicycles because capital outlay for the bicycles was relatively small (Foyd et. al, 2017). Similarly, in the case of the Smyths, they do not appear to have bought any tangible assets for their work, which means they have a small capital outlay or none at all. Everything was provided by Mark Pty Ltd for