Dump file for the Employee specification

The result of processing this SHYSTER output using the LaTeX document processor is available as an Acrobat PDF file. Other example SHYSTER output is also available.

PDF PDF files can be read and printed using Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.   Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

% Dump file

% Produced by SHYSTER version 1.0

% Copyright James Popple 1993

% This is a stand-alone LaTeX file.
% Use LaTeX version 2.09 <25 March 1992> and TeX version 3.141.

\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
\oddsidemargin=-5.4mm
\evensidemargin=-5.4mm
\topmargin=-5.4mm
\headheight=0mm
\headsep=0mm
\textheight=247mm
\textwidth=170mm
\footskip=15mm
\pagestyle{plain}

\begin{document}

\subsection*{Hierarchy}

    \begin{small}
	\begin{trivlist}\item[]
	    \begin{tabular}{|r|l|}\hline
		\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$c$}&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\it Court\/}\\\hline\hline
		1&five justices of the High Court of Australia\\
		2&four justices of the High Court of Australia\\
		3&three justices of the High Court of Australia\\
		4&a single justice of the High Court of Australia\\
		5&three judges of the Federal Court of Australia\\
		6&the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council\\
		7&the English Court of Appeal\\
		8&the King's Bench Division of the English High Court\\
		&the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court\\\hline
	    \end{tabular}
	\end{trivlist}
    \end{small}

\subsection*{Employee area}

    \begin{small}
	\begin{tabular}{*{2}{|c}*{17}{@{\hspace{0.4em}}c}|r|c|}\hline
	    &\multicolumn{18}{|c|}{\it Attributes\/}&&\\
	    \smash{\raisebox{0.6\ht\strutbox}{\it Case\/}}&$A_{1}$&$A_{2}$&$A_{3}$&$A_{4}$&$A_{5}$&$A_{6}$&$A_{7}$&$A_{8}$&$A_{9}$&$A_{10}$&$A_{11}$&$A_{12}$&$A_{13}$&$A_{14}$&$A_{15}$&$A_{16}$&$A_{17}$&$A_{18}$&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\smash{\raisebox{0.6\ht\strutbox}{$c$}}}&\smash{\raisebox{0.6\ht\strutbox}{\it Result\/}}\\\hline\hline
	    $C_{1}$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&1&\\
	    $C_{2}$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&2&\\
	    $C_{3}$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&4&\\
	    $C_{4}$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&5&{\sf Employee}\\
	    $C_{5}$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&7&\\
	    $C_{6}$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&&&&&&&$\times$&7&\\
	    $C_{7}$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&8&\\\cline{2-20}
	    $I_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sf Employee}}$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&&&\\\hline\hline
	    $C_{8}$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&3&\\
	    $C_{9}$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&3&\\
	    $C_{10}$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&5&\\
	    $C_{11}$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&6&{\sf Contractor}\\
	    $C_{12}$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&7&\\
	    $C_{13}$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&&&&&&$\bullet$&$\times$&7&\\
	    $C_{14}$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&8&\\\cline{2-20}
	    $I_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sf Contractor}}$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&$\bullet$&$\times$&$\times$&$\times$&&$\bullet$&&\\\hline
	\end{tabular}
    \end{small}

\subsubsection*{Opening}

    \begin{list}{}{\leftmargin=0mm}\item[]
	The law distinguishes between a contract of service
	  (between employer and employee) and a contract for
	  services (between principal and independent
	  contractor). This distinction affects the terms that
	  will be implied in the absence of an express
	  agreement, the liability of the employer to third
	  parties, the applicability of industrial awards, the
	  applicability of statutes which may affect workers'
	  compensation, occupational health and safety,
	  long-service leave, fringe benefits tax, etc.\par The
	  terms ``employer'' and ``worker'' are used here to
	  mean ``employer'' and ``employee'' (in the case of a
	  contract of service) or ``principal'' and
	  ``independent contractor'' (in the case of a contract
	  for services).
    \end{list}

\subsubsection*{Results}

    \begin{description}

	\item[\rm{\sf Employee}:]
	    the worker is an employee.

	\item[\rm{\sf Contractor}:]
	    the worker is an independent contractor.

    \end{description}

\subsubsection*{Attributes}

    \begin{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
	    Did the employer direct not only what work was to be
	    done, but also the manner in which it was to be
	    done?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the employer directed the manner in which
		    the work was to be done.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the employer did not direct the manner in
		    which the work was to be done.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the employer
		    directed the manner in which the work was to
		    be done.

	    \end{description}

	    If the employer had a right of control over how the
	    worker did the work then the employer had the power
	    to direct not only what work was to be done, but
	    also the manner in which it was to be done.

	\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
	    Was the worker allowed to use her/his own discretion
	    in doing an aspect of the work that was not
	    specified beforehand?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the worker was not allowed to use her/his
		    own discretion in doing an aspect of the
		    work that was not specified beforehand.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the worker was
		    allowed to use her/his own discretion in
		    doing an aspect of the work that was not
		    specified beforehand.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
	    Was the worker an integral part of the employer's
	    business?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the worker was not an integral part of the
		    employer's business, but was accessory to
		    it.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the worker was an
		    integral part of the employer's business or
		    was merely accessory to it.

	    \end{description}

	    If the worker was ``part and parcel'' of the
	    employer's business then she/he was an integral part
	    of the business, not merely accessory to it.

	\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
	    Did the worker own the tools or provide the
	    transport with which she/he performed the work?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the worker owned the tools or provided the
		    transport with which she/he performed the
		    work.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the worker neither owned the tools nor
		    provided the transport with which she/he
		    performed the work.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the worker owned the
		    tools or provided the transport with which
		    she/he performed the work.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
	    Would the employer make a profit/loss if the work
	    performed by the worker cost less/more than
	    expected?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the employer would make a profit/loss if the
		    work performed by the worker cost less/more
		    than expected.

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the employer would not make a profit/loss if
		    the work performed by the worker cost
		    less/more than expected.

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the employer would
		    make a profit/loss if the work performed by
		    the worker cost less/more than expected.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
	    Was the work performed on the employer's premises?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the work was performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the work was not performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the work was
		    performed on the employer's premises.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
	    Did the employer supervise or inspect the work?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the employer supervised or inspected the
		    work.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the employer neither supervised nor
		    inspected the work.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the employer
		    supervised or inspected the work.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
	    Was the worker in business on her/his own account?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the worker was in business on her/his own
		    account.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the worker was in
		    business on her/his own account.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
	    Was the worker allowed to employ others to assist
	    with her/his work?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the worker was allowed to employ others to
		    assist with her/his work.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the worker was not allowed to employ others
		    to assist with her/his work.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the worker was
		    allowed to employ others to assist with
		    her/his work.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
	    Was the worker obliged to work only for the
	    employer?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the worker was obliged to work only for the
		    employer.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the worker was
		    obliged to work only for the employer.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
	    Was the worker required to work at specified times?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the worker was required to work at specified
		    times.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the worker was not required to work at
		    specified times.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the worker was
		    required to work at specified times.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
	    Did the employer pay the worker by time?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the employer paid the worker by time.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the employer did not pay the worker by time.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the employer paid
		    the worker by time.

	    \end{description}

	    The employer could pay the worker by time (e.g. by
	    the hour, or by the week) or by results.

	\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
	    Was the money that the employer paid to the worker
	    stated to be a ``fee''?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was stated to be a ``fee''.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the money that the
		    employer paid to the worker was stated to be
		    a ``fee''.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
	    Was the money that the employer paid to the worker
	    stated to be ``wages'' or ``salary''?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the money that the
		    employer paid to the worker was stated to be
		    ``wages'' or ``salary''.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
	    Did the employer deduct PAYE tax instalments from
	    the worker's pay?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the employer deducted PAYE tax instalments
		    from the worker's pay.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the employer
		    deducted PAYE tax instalments from the
		    worker's pay.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
	    Did the employer pay the worker sick pay or holiday
	    pay?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the employer paid the worker sick pay or
		    holiday pay.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the employer paid
		    the worker sick pay or holiday pay.

	    \end{description}

	\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
	    Did the employer and the worker express an intention
	    that the relationship would be one of employer and
	    employee?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the employer and the worker expressed an
		    intention that the relationship would be one
		    of employer and employee.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Employee}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the employer and the
		    worker expressed an intention that the
		    relationship would be one of employer and
		    employee.

	    \end{description}

	    For example, if the employer and the worker
	    characterized their agreement as being a ``contract
	    of service,'' that would be an expression of an
	    intention that the relationship would be one of
	    employer and employee.

	\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
	    Did the employer and the worker express an intention
	    that the relationship would be one of principal and
	    independent contractor?

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\sc yes:]
		    the employer and the worker expressed an
		    intention that the relationship would be one
		    of principal and independent contractor.

		    $\Rightarrow$ {\sf Contractor}

		\item[\sc no:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

		\item[\sc unknown:]
		    it is not known whether the employer and the
		    worker expressed an intention that the
		    relationship would be one of principal and
		    independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    For example, if the employer and the worker
	    characterized their agreement as being a ``contract
	    for services,'' that would be an expression of an
	    intention that the relationship would be one of
	    principal and independent contractor.

    \end{description}

\subsubsection*{Cases in which the worker is an employee}

    \begin{description}

	\item[\rm$C_{1}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Zuijs v. Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    (1955) 93 CLR 561
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it Zuijs v. Wirth\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer did not direct the manner in
		    which the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker neither owned the tools nor
		    provided the transport with which she/he
		    performed the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would make a profit/loss if the
		    work performed by the worker cost less/more
		    than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer supervised or inspected the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to employ others
		    to assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was required to work at specified
		    times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer deducted PAYE tax instalments
		    from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Zuijs v. Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{(1955) 93 CLR 561.}
	    a 1955 decision of
	      five justices of the High Court of Australia,
	    Zuijs was an acrobat who fell during a trapeze act
	      at one of Wirth Brothers' circuses. He sought
	      compensation under the Worker's Compensation Act
	      1926 (NSW), claiming to be an employee of Wirth
	      Brothers. Wirth Brothers claimed that, because of
	      the high degree of skill and personal judgment
	      that he had to exercise in his work, Zuijs was an
	      independent contractor and therefore not entitled
	      to compensation.\par The High Court unanimously
	      agreed with Zuijs. ``Even if [one of the circus
	      managers] could not interfere in the actual
	      technique of the acrobats and in the character of
	      the act, no reason appears why [Zuijs] should not
	      be subject to his directions in all other respects
	      \dots\ There are countless examples of highly
	      specialized functions in modern life that must as
	      a matter of practical necessity and sometimes even
	      as a matter of law be performed on the
	      responsibility of persons who possess particular
	      knowledge and skill and who are accordingly
	      qualified. But those engaged to perform the
	      functions may nevertheless work under a contract
	      of service.''\footnote{ibid. at 571--2 per Dixon
	      CJ, Williams, Webb and Taylor JJ.}

	\item[\rm$C_{2}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Cam and Sons Pty Ltd v. Sargent\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    (1940) 14 ALJ 162
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it Cam v. Sargent\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer directed the manner in which
		    the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker neither owned the tools nor
		    provided the transport with which she/he
		    performed the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would make a profit/loss if the
		    work performed by the worker cost less/more
		    than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was not performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer neither supervised nor
		    inspected the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to employ others to
		    assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was not required to work at
		    specified times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer did not pay the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Cam and Sons Pty Ltd v. Sargent}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{(1940) 14 ALJ 162.}
	    a 1940 decision of
	      four justices of the High Court of Australia,
	    Sargent was the master of a ship. He entered into an
	      agreement with Cam and Sons that claimed that the
	      ship was hired by Cam and Sons to Sargent and his
	      fellow contractors (called ``the partnership'').
	      However, it was doubtful whether that agreement
	      actually deprived Cam and Sons of any control over
	      the ship. The partnership was to use the ship only
	      to carry coal from Swansea to Sydney. Cam and Sons
	      were sole agents of the partnership for securing
	      cargoes for the ship, and for collecting money due
	      to the partnership. The partnership paid nothing
	      for the ``hire'' of the ship, but received a
	      specified sum for each return trip of a certain
	      tonnage plus (in certain circumstances) 5\% of the
	      earnings, the balance of which was retained by Cam
	      and Sons. Cam and Sons had to approve people
	      employed by the partnership.\par Sargent claimed
	      that he (and others in the partnership) were
	      employed by Cam and Sons, and therefore came
	      within the terms of an industrial award. Cam and
	      Sons claimed that members of the partnership were
	      independent contractors.\par The High Court
	      unanimously agreed with Sargent. Rich J came to
	      the conclusion that the agreement was an attempt
	      to evade the terms of the industrial
	      award.\footnote{ibid. at 163.}

	\item[\rm$C_{3}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. J. Walter Thompson (Australia) Pty Ltd\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    (1944) 69 CLR 227
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it FCT v. Thompson\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer directed the manner in which
		    the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to use her/his
		    own discretion in doing an aspect of the
		    work that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker neither owned the tools nor
		    provided the transport with which she/he
		    performed the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would make a profit/loss if the
		    work performed by the worker cost less/more
		    than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer supervised or inspected the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    it is not known whether the worker was in
		    business on her/his own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to employ others
		    to assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was required to work at specified
		    times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer did not pay the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. J. Walter Thompson (Australia) Pty Ltd}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{(1944) 69 CLR 227.}
	    a 1944 decision of
	      a single justice of the High Court of Australia,
	    the FCT claimed that payments made to radio artists
	      by Thompson were ``wages'' within the meaning of
	      the {\it Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 1941\/} (Cth)
	      and therefore taxable. The artists were selected
	      by a producer and paid to appear in radio plays.
	      They were paid a ``fee'' for each performance, but
	      were paid nothing for attending (compulsory)
	      rehearsals. Thompson claimed that the artists were
	      presumed to know their work and ``to render
	      services in the same manner as a professional man,
	      such as a surgeon or an architect, not being
	      subject \dots\ to detailed control as to the
	      manner in which those services are to be
	      performed.''\footnote{ibid. at 231.} Hence,
	      Thompson claimed, they were independent
	      contractors.\par Latham CJ held that the radio
	      actors were employed ``to co-operate with others
	      in a team under the control of the producer to
	      bring about a result, the details of which must in
	      great measure be determined by the
	      producer.''\footnote{ibid. at 232.} Hence the
	      artists were employed by Thompson; the fee they
	      were paid was subject to payroll tax.

	\item[\rm$C_{4}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Australian Timber Workers Union v. Monaro Sawmills Pty Ltd\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    (1980) 29 ALR 322
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it ATWU v. Monaro\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer directed the manner in which
		    the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to use her/his
		    own discretion in doing an aspect of the
		    work that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker owned the tools or provided the
		    transport with which she/he performed the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would not make a profit/loss if
		    the work performed by the worker cost
		    less/more than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer supervised or inspected the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    it is not known whether the worker was
		    allowed to employ others to assist with
		    her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was not required to work at
		    specified times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer did not pay the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Australian Timber Workers Union v. Monaro Sawmills Pty Ltd}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{(1980) 29 ALR 322.}
	    a 1980 decision of
	      three judges of the Federal Court of Australia,
	    Wales was a tree feller who cut timber exclusively
	      for Monaro Sawmills. He performed his work in an
	      area allotted to him by Monaro Sawmills. He, and
	      other fellers, were paid by the amount of millable
	      wood they cut. Wales provided his own tools and
	      transport, but was (with the other fellers)
	      covered by Monaro Sawmill's workers' compensation
	      policy.\par The union sought an order that a
	      penalty be imposed on Monaro Sawmills for
	      breaching the Timber Industries Consolidated Award
	      1974 by failing to pay Wales money in lieu of
	      annual leave. Monaro Sawmills claimed that Wales
	      was an independent contractor, and so was not
	      subject to the award.\par Sweeney and Evatt JJ
	      examined the circumstances of Wales's employment
	      and held that those circumstances clearly pointed
	      to the existence of a relationship of employer and
	      employee. They could not see ``any sense in which
	      it could be said that Wales was conducting some
	      sort of business of his own.''\footnote{ibid. at
	      329.}

	\item[\rm$C_{5}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Ferguson v. John Dawson and Partners (Contractors) Ltd\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    [1976] 1 WLR 1213
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it Ferguson v. Dawson\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer directed the manner in which
		    the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to use her/his
		    own discretion in doing an aspect of the
		    work that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker neither owned the tools nor
		    provided the transport with which she/he
		    performed the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would make a profit/loss if the
		    work performed by the worker cost less/more
		    than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was not performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer supervised or inspected the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to employ others
		    to assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was required to work at specified
		    times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker expressed an
		    intention that the relationship would be one
		    of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Ferguson v. John Dawson and Partners (Contractors) Ltd}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{[1976] 1 WLR 1213.}
	    a 1976 decision of
	      the English Court of Appeal,
	    Ferguson fell off a roof while removing some
	      scaffolding boards. He claimed damages against
	      Dawson (the building contractors) for breach of
	      statutory duty relying on the Construction
	      (Working Places) Regulations 1966 (UK). This duty
	      would only be owed if Ferguson was an employee of
	      Dawson.\par Megaw and Browne LJJ held that,
	      despite the fact that both parties labelled
	      Ferguson a ``self-employed labour only
	      subcontractor'', the reality of the relationship
	      between them was that of employer and
	      employee.\footnote{ibid. at 1219 per Megaw LJ, at
	      1228--9 per Browne LJ.}

	\item[\rm$C_{6}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Stevenson Jordan and Harrison Ltd v. Macdonald and Evans (2)\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    [1952] 1 TLR 101
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it Stevenson v. Macdonald (2)\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer did not direct the manner in
		    which the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker neither owned the tools nor
		    provided the transport with which she/he
		    performed the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would make a profit/loss if the
		    work performed by the worker cost less/more
		    than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was not performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer
		    supervised or inspected the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to employ others
		    to assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was required to work at specified
		    times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer paid
		    the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    it is not known whether the money that the
		    employer paid to the worker was stated to be
		    a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    it is not known whether the money that the
		    employer paid to the worker was stated to be
		    ``wages'' or ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer
		    deducted PAYE tax instalments from the
		    worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer paid
		    the worker sick pay or holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer and the
		    worker expressed an intention that the
		    relationship would be one of employer and
		    employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Stevenson Jordan and Harrison Ltd v. Macdonald and Evans (2)}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{[1952] 1 TLR 101.}
	    a 1951 decision of
	      the English Court of Appeal,
	    Evans-Hemming was an accountant who had been
	      employed (first as a servant, then as an executive
	      officer) by Macdonald and Evans. Shortly after he
	      left them, he wrote a textbook on business
	      management and submitted the manuscript to
	      Stevenson Jordan and Harrison (a firm of
	      publishers). He died before the book was
	      published. Macdonald and Evans claimed that the
	      book was written while Evans-Hemming was their
	      employee, and so they owned the copyright in the
	      work under s. 5(1)(b) of the Copyright Act 1911
	      (UK).\par The book was divided into five sections.
	      The second section was written in its final form
	      while Evans-Hemming was employed by Macdonald and
	      Evans. The Court of Appeal held that he wrote the
	      second section as an employee, and hence the
	      copyright in the second section was in Macdonald
	      and Evans.

	\item[\rm$C_{7}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Performing Right Society Ltd v. Mitchell and Booker (Palais de Danse) Ltd\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    [1924] 1 KB 762
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it PRS v. Palais de Danse\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer directed the manner in which
		    the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker owned the tools or provided the
		    transport with which she/he performed the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would not make a profit/loss if
		    the work performed by the worker cost
		    less/more than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer supervised or inspected the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to employ others
		    to assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was obliged to work only for the
		    employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was required to work at specified
		    times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Performing Right Society Ltd v. Mitchell and Booker (Palais de Danse) Ltd}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{[1924] 1 KB 762.}
	    a 1924 decision of
	      the King's Bench Division of the English High Court,
	    the defendant was the occupier of a dance hall. It
	      engaged a band to provide music in the hall. The
	      agreement provided that the band should not
	      infringe copyright, and that the band would be
	      liable for damages and costs caused by any such
	      infringement. There was also a notice displayed in
	      the hall stating that ``[o]nly such music as may
	      be played without fee or licence is allowed to be
	      played in this Hall.''\footnote{ibid. at 764.}\par
	      The band performed several pieces of music, the
	      copyright in which was held by the Performing
	      Right Society, without its permission. The
	      defendant did not know, and had no reasonable
	      grounds for suspecting, that the infringement was
	      to take place.\par The PRS abandoned its earlier
	      claim that the defendant had ``permitted'' the
	      infringement under s. 2(3) of the Copyright Act
	      1911 (UK). However, it claimed that the band
	      members were the defendant's employees, and so the
	      defendant was vicariously liable for the
	      infringement.\par McCardie J examined the
	      agreement and found that it gave to the defendant
	      ``the right of continuous, dominant, and detailed
	      control on every point, including the nature of
	      the music to be played''.\footnote{ibid. at 771.}
	      Hence the band members were employees of the
	      defendant, which was liable for the infringement.

	\item[$I_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sf Employee}}$]
	    (the ideal case in which
	    the worker is an employee):

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer directed the manner in which
		    the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to use her/his
		    own discretion in doing an aspect of the
		    work that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker neither owned the tools nor
		    provided the transport with which she/he
		    performed the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would make a profit/loss if the
		    work performed by the worker cost less/more
		    than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer supervised or inspected the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to employ others
		    to assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was obliged to work only for the
		    employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was required to work at specified
		    times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer deducted PAYE tax instalments
		    from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker sick pay or
		    holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker expressed an
		    intention that the relationship would be one
		    of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer and the
		    worker expressed an intention that the
		    relationship would be one of principal and
		    independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

    \end{description}

\subsubsection*{Cases in which the worker is an independent contractor}

    \begin{description}

	\item[\rm$C_{8}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Humberstone v. Northern Timber Mills\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    (1949) 79 CLR 389
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it Humberstone v. NTM\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer did not direct the manner in
		    which the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was not an integral part of the
		    employer's business, but was accessory to
		    it.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker owned the tools or provided the
		    transport with which she/he performed the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would not make a profit/loss if
		    the work performed by the worker cost
		    less/more than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was not performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer neither supervised nor
		    inspected the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to employ others to
		    assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was not required to work at
		    specified times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer did not pay the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Humberstone v. Northern Timber Mills}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{(1949) 79 CLR 389.}
	    a 1949 decision of
	      three justices of the High Court of Australia,
	    Humberstone carried goods for NTM. He had originally
	      held himself out as a carrier, prepared to carry
	      for anyone, but for over twenty years he had
	      carried goods solely for NTM (although he would,
	      infrequently, carry back-loads for NTM's
	      customers). Humberstone owned the truck, and paid
	      for petrol and repairs. He was paid weekly on a
	      weight-mileage basis. He was a licenced carrier,
	      and had his name printed on the side of his truck
	      with the description ``carrier.''\par On the way
	      back from a job, he had a puncture. He went home
	      to change the wheel, but exerted himself so
	      strenuously in trying to remove the tyre from the
	      wheel that he became ill and later lapsed into a
	      coma, from which he did not recover. Section 3 of
	      the {\it Worker's Compensation Act\/} 1928 (Vic)
	      had been amended about a year before Humberstone's
	      death so as to include independent contractors in
	      its definition of a ``worker'' covered by the Act.
	      However, the High Court held that the amendment
	      applied only to contracts entered into after it
	      came into operation. Further, the Court decided
	      that Humberstone was not an employee of NTM.
	      Hence, he was not a ``worker'' under the Act, and
	      his widow was not entitled to compensation under
	      the Act.

	\item[\rm$C_{9}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Queensland Stations Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    (1945) 70 CLR 539
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it Queensland Stations v. FCT\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer did not direct the manner in
		    which the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was not an integral part of the
		    employer's business, but was accessory to
		    it.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker owned the tools or provided the
		    transport with which she/he performed the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would not make a profit/loss if
		    the work performed by the worker cost
		    less/more than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was not performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer supervised or inspected the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was in business on her/his own
		    account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to employ others to
		    assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was not required to work at
		    specified times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer did not pay the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker expressed an
		    intention that the relationship would be one
		    of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Queensland Stations Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{(1945) 70 CLR 539.}
	    a 1945 decision of
	      three justices of the High Court of Australia,
	    agreements were entered into between Queensland
	      Stations and some drovers. The agreements stated
	      that the drovers would ``serve'' Queensland
	      Stations and take charge of a specified number of
	      cattle, and deliver them to a specified place. The
	      drovers were paid a specified rate per head of
	      cattle successfully delivered. Each drover was
	      responsible for hiring help, and paying for feed
	      for the cattle. The drovers were to ``obey and
	      carry out all lawful instructions and to use the
	      whole of [their] time, energy and ability in the
	      careful droving of the stock.''\footnote{ibid. at
	      540.} The FCT claimed that payments made to
	      drovers were ``wages'' within the meaning of the
	      {\it Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 1941\/} (Cth),
	      and that Queensland Stations was liable to payroll
	      tax.\par The High Court held that the drovers were
	      independent contractors, so the payments were not
	      ``wages.'' Rich J pointed out that drovers were
	      traditionally free from the control of owners of
	      cattle. ``The obligation imposed on the drover to
	      obey and carry out all lawful instructions is not
	      a reservation of detailed control and possession
	      having regard to the terms of the agreement as a
	      whole.''\footnote{ibid. at 549.}

	\item[\rm$C_{10}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Price v. Grant Industries Pty Ltd\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    (1978) 21 ALR 388
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it Price v. Grant\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer did not direct the manner in
		    which the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker owned the tools or provided the
		    transport with which she/he performed the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would not make a profit/loss if
		    the work performed by the worker cost
		    less/more than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was not performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer neither supervised nor
		    inspected the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to employ others to
		    assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was not required to work at
		    specified times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer did not pay the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer deducted PAYE tax instalments
		    from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Price v. Grant Industries Pty Ltd}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{(1978) 21 ALR 388.}
	    a 1978 decision of
	      three judges of the Federal Court of Australia,
	    Grant Industries manufactured and sold wardrobes,
	      which Price (and others) delivered and installed.
	      Price and each of the other ``contractors'' (as
	      Grant Industries called them) had to provide and
	      maintain a suitable truck to deliver the
	      wardrobes, and provide the tools required to
	      install them. Price sought an order that a penalty
	      be imposed on Grant Industries for breaching the
	      Furnishing Trades (Consolidated) Award 1975 by not
	      paying him the appropriate rate of wages, and not
	      giving him annual leave. The award only applied to
	      ``employees'' of specified employers.\par The
	      Federal Court examined the facts, and the
	      provisions of the agreement, and held that Price
	      was an independent contractor and, therefore, not
	      subject to the award.

	\item[\rm$C_{11}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Australian Mutual Provident Society v. Chaplin\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    (1978) 18 ALR 385
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it AMP v. Chaplin\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer did not direct the manner in
		    which the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker owned the tools or provided the
		    transport with which she/he performed the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would not make a profit/loss if
		    the work performed by the worker cost
		    less/more than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was not performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer neither supervised nor
		    inspected the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was in business on her/his own
		    account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to employ others to
		    assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was obliged to work only for the
		    employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was not required to work at
		    specified times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer did not pay the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker expressed an
		    intention that the relationship would be one
		    of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Australian Mutual Provident Society v. Chaplin}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{(1978) 18 ALR 385.}
	    a 1978 decision of
	      the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
	    Chaplin was a representative of AMP. A clause of the
	      agreement between them stated that the
	      relationship was one of ``principal and agent''
	      and not one of ``master and servant.'' Chaplin
	      claimed that he was employed under a contract of
	      service, and was therefore a ``worker'' under the
	      {\it Long Service Leave Act, 1967\/} (SA) and
	      entitled to certain benefits.\par The Privy
	      Council found that there was no reason to think
	      that the clause was not a genuine statement of the
	      parties' intentions. Examining the agreement,
	      their Lordships concluded that it provided for a
	      contract of agency. The fact that Chaplin was
	      given the power of unlimited delegation of the
	      whole performance of his work was ``almost
	      conclusive against the contract being a contract
	      of service.''\footnote{ibid. at 391.}

	\item[\rm$C_{12}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Massey v. Crown Life Insurance Co.\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    [1978] 1 WLR 676
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it Massey v. Crown Life\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer directed the manner in which
		    the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker neither owned the tools nor
		    provided the transport with which she/he
		    performed the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would make a profit/loss if the
		    work performed by the worker cost less/more
		    than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer neither supervised nor
		    inspected the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was in business on her/his own
		    account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to employ others to
		    assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was required to work at specified
		    times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker sick pay or
		    holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker expressed an
		    intention that the relationship would be one
		    of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Massey v. Crown Life Insurance Co.}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{[1978] 1 WLR 676.}
	    a 1977 decision of
	      the English Court of Appeal,
	    Massey was the manager of a branch of Crown Life. He
	      had been an employee for two years, then he and
	      Crown Life entered into a new agreement whereby
	      Massey continued to perform the same duties as
	      before, but was self-employed. This arrangement
	      had tax advantages for Massey. After a further two
	      years, Crown Life terminated the agreement and
	      Massey sought compensation for unfair dismissal
	      under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act
	      1974 (UK). Compensation was only payable if Massey
	      was employed under a contract of service.\par Lord
	      Denning MR stated that ``if the true relationship
	      of the parties is that of master and servant under
	      a contract of service, the parties cannot alter
	      the truth of that relationship by putting a
	      different label upon it.''\footnote{ibid. at 679.}
	      However, Lord Denning (and the rest of the Court
	      of Appeal) held that the agreement was genuinely
	      intended to establish Massey as being
	      self-employed; he was an independent contractor.

	\item[\rm$C_{13}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Stevenson Jordan and Harrison Ltd v. Macdonald and Evans (1)\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    [1952] 1 TLR 101
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it Stevenson v. Macdonald (1)\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer did not direct the manner in
		    which the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was not an integral part of the
		    employer's business, but was accessory to
		    it.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker neither owned the tools nor
		    provided the transport with which she/he
		    performed the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would make a profit/loss if the
		    work performed by the worker cost less/more
		    than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was not performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer
		    supervised or inspected the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was not allowed to employ others
		    to assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was required to work at specified
		    times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer paid
		    the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    it is not known whether the money that the
		    employer paid to the worker was stated to be
		    a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    it is not known whether the money that the
		    employer paid to the worker was stated to be
		    ``wages'' or ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer
		    deducted PAYE tax instalments from the
		    worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer paid
		    the worker sick pay or holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker expressed an
		    intention that the relationship would be one
		    of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Stevenson Jordan and Harrison Ltd v. Macdonald and Evans (1)}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{[1952] 1 TLR 101.}
	    a 1951 decision of
	      the English Court of Appeal,
	    Evans-Hemming was an accountant who had been
	      employed (first as a servant, then as an executive
	      officer) by Macdonald and Evans. Shortly after he
	      left them, he wrote a textbook on business
	      management and submitted the manuscript to
	      Stevenson Jordan and Harrison (a firm of
	      publishers). He died before the book was
	      published. Macdonald and Evans claimed that the
	      book was written while Evans-Hemming was their
	      employee, and so they owned the copyright in the
	      work under s. 5(1)(b) of the Copyright Act 1911
	      (UK).\par The book was divided into five sections.
	      The first section consisted of the text of three
	      public lectures that Evans-Hemming had given while
	      employed by Macdonald and Evans. The Court of
	      Appeal held that he had given these lectures as an
	      independent contractor. As Denning LJ said,
	      ``under a contract of service, a man is employed
	      as part of the business, and his work is done as
	      an integral part of the business; whereas, under a
	      contract for services, his work, although done for
	      the business, is not integrated into it but is
	      only accessory to it \dots\ The lectures were, in
	      a sense, part of the services rendered by Mr
	      Evans-Hemming for the benefit of the company. But
	      they were in no sense part of his service. It
	      follows that the copyright in the lectures was in
	      Mr Evans-Hemming.''\footnote{ibid. at 111.}

	\item[\rm$C_{14}$:]\frenchspacing
	    {\it Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance\/} \nonfrenchspacing
	    [1968] 2 QB 497
	    (``\frenchspacing
	    {\it Ready Mixed v. Minister\/}\nonfrenchspacing'')

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer did not direct the manner in
		    which the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was an integral part of the
		    employer's business.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker owned the tools or provided the
		    transport with which she/he performed the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would not make a profit/loss if
		    the work performed by the worker cost
		    less/more than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    the work was not performed on the employer's
		    premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer neither supervised nor
		    inspected the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was not in business on her/his
		    own account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to employ others to
		    assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was obliged to work only for the
		    employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was not required to work at
		    specified times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer did not pay the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    the employer and the worker did not express
		    any intention that the relationship would be
		    one of employer and employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker expressed an
		    intention that the relationship would be one
		    of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

	    In \frenchspacing
	    {\it Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance}\nonfrenchspacing,%
	    \footnote{[1968] 2 QB 497.}
	    a 1967 decision of
	      the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court,
	    Latimer worked for Ready Mixed as an
	      ``owner-driver.'' He was paid at mileage rates,
	      and was obliged to buy the truck through a
	      financial organization associated with Ready
	      Mixed. The truck was painted in the company's
	      colours, and he had to wear a Ready Mixed uniform.
	      Latimer was obliged to meet the costs of
	      maintenance, repair and insurance of the truck
	      (and the attached mixing unit, which belonged to
	      Ready Mixed). The Minister determined that Latimer
	      was employed under a contract of service, and was
	      therefore an ``employed person'' under s. 1(2) of
	      the National Insurance Act 1965 (UK), making Ready
	      Mixed liable to make weekly contributions.\par
	      MacKenna J examined the contract and held that the
	      rights it conferred, and the duties it imposed,
	      between Latimer and Ready Mixed were not such as
	      to make it a contract of service.

	\item[$I_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sf Contractor}}$]
	    (the ideal case in which
	    the worker is an independent contractor):

	    \begin{description}

		\item[\rm$A_{1}$:]
		    the employer did not direct the manner in
		    which the work was to be done.

		\item[\rm$A_{2}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to use her/his own
		    discretion in doing an aspect of the work
		    that was not specified beforehand.

		\item[\rm$A_{3}$:]
		    the worker was not an integral part of the
		    employer's business, but was accessory to
		    it.

		\item[\rm$A_{4}$:]
		    the worker owned the tools or provided the
		    transport with which she/he performed the
		    work.

		\item[\rm$A_{5}$:]
		    the employer would not make a profit/loss if
		    the work performed by the worker cost
		    less/more than expected.

		\item[\rm$A_{6}$:]
		    it is not known whether the work was
		    performed on the employer's premises.

		\item[\rm$A_{7}$:]
		    the employer neither supervised nor
		    inspected the work.

		\item[\rm$A_{8}$:]
		    the worker was in business on her/his own
		    account.

		\item[\rm$A_{9}$:]
		    the worker was allowed to employ others to
		    assist with her/his work.

		\item[\rm$A_{10}$:]
		    the worker was not obliged to work only for
		    the employer.

		\item[\rm$A_{11}$:]
		    the worker was not required to work at
		    specified times.

		\item[\rm$A_{12}$:]
		    the employer did not pay the worker by time.

		\item[\rm$A_{13}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was stated to be a ``fee''.

		\item[\rm$A_{14}$:]
		    the money that the employer paid to the
		    worker was not stated to be ``wages'' or
		    ``salary''.

		\item[\rm$A_{15}$:]
		    the employer did not deduct PAYE tax
		    instalments from the worker's pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{16}$:]
		    the employer paid the worker neither sick
		    pay nor holiday pay.

		\item[\rm$A_{17}$:]
		    it is not known whether the employer and the
		    worker expressed an intention that the
		    relationship would be one of employer and
		    employee.

		\item[\rm$A_{18}$:]
		    the employer and the worker expressed an
		    intention that the relationship would be one
		    of principal and independent contractor.

	    \end{description}

    \end{description}

\end{document}

Copyright noticeValid HTML 4.0
Home page:  <http://www.popple.net/james/>
E-mail:  <james@popple.net>
Last modified:  30 April 1995