Marya v Network Transport Services [2015] FWC 6135
National Transport Services (defendant) is a fragment of the Civic Transport Group and delivers transport services to its clients involving road transport of the general freight in Melbourne and surrounding areas. Mr Divek Marya (plaintiff) had been working with the defendant since July 2012 to provide freight courier and delivery services to clients. However, his engagement was dismissed last April 2015 because of issues about his conduct and performance. He subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal application However, the company submitted he was engaged as an independent contractor, and not as an employee, and is therefore unable to make an unfair dismissal application. The matter proceeded …show more content…
It also states that a person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his employer at least the minimum employment period. For that reason, if a person is not employed, he is not protected from the above stated law. Mr. Marya underlined that in totality, his relationship with the defendant is considered an employee and not as an independent contractor. NTS rejected the submission and reiterated that the person was just an owner driver providing freight courier and deliver services to its clients. The issue in this case was about whether the plaintiff is eligible to have protection from unfair dismissal under the law.
As per the Operations Manager of NTS, the applicant’s commitment ended April 2015. The transport group did not employ any employees; though, it has 95 owner drivers appointed as independent contractor, having signed a formal written “Owner Driver Agreement” and each having their own vehicle. The party submitted the agreement to Fair Work Tribunal.
The arguments were divided by indices that were derived from previous cases with the same issue. These indices distinguishes an employee from a
National Transport Services (defendant) is a fragment of the Civic Transport Group and delivers transport services to its clients involving road transport of the general freight in Melbourne and surrounding areas. Mr Divek Marya (plaintiff) had been working with the defendant since July 2012 to provide freight courier and delivery services to clients. However, his engagement was dismissed last April 2015 because of issues about his conduct and performance. He subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal application However, the company submitted he was engaged as an independent contractor, and not as an employee, and is therefore unable to make an unfair dismissal application. The matter proceeded …show more content…
It also states that a person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his employer at least the minimum employment period. For that reason, if a person is not employed, he is not protected from the above stated law. Mr. Marya underlined that in totality, his relationship with the defendant is considered an employee and not as an independent contractor. NTS rejected the submission and reiterated that the person was just an owner driver providing freight courier and deliver services to its clients. The issue in this case was about whether the plaintiff is eligible to have protection from unfair dismissal under the law.
As per the Operations Manager of NTS, the applicant’s commitment ended April 2015. The transport group did not employ any employees; though, it has 95 owner drivers appointed as independent contractor, having signed a formal written “Owner Driver Agreement” and each having their own vehicle. The party submitted the agreement to Fair Work Tribunal.
The arguments were divided by indices that were derived from previous cases with the same issue. These indices distinguishes an employee from a