The AAT has found that individuals working for a plumbing business were employees of the business and that the business was required to pay superannuation contributions.
The business argued that the workers were independent contractors and that there was no superannuation requirement.
After reviewing the individuals' relationship with the business, the AAT decided the workers were full-time casuals paid on an hourly rate and not eligible for holiday or sick leave.
The AAT considered various factors, including that the individuals all had the same contract (with the same terms) with the business. The AAT said one would expect independent contractors to have differing terms, but the fact that their contracts were the same was "extraordinary".
Another key factor was that the hourly rates charged by the workers to customers were largely set by the business. Overall, the AAT concluded that the workers were employees and affirmed the requirement to pay superannuation.
Over recent years these latter two factors have been given lesser importance, in the cases.
The law continues to be quite blurred, with decisions now based on a scorecard of “for/against” approach with “degree of control” remaining one of the key questions.
Ed: Still ambiguous as you can tick the boxes on both sides of the ATO test for employer/employee matrix. Legislators just don't care about the employers at the bottom of the food chain.
We have been told that the only labour invoices that you don't need to pay super on are from P/L Companies, Trusts and partnerships regardless of how the invoice is written. If the ATO want to string you up they can and here's the twist - if they penalise you they keep the money and your now so called "employees" have to claim it from the ATO. How many would? Zero I would say! The ATO then keeps the lot.Nothing changes.
Write to you your MP and complain.
"...you told me and I forgot, you showed me and I saw, you involved me and I remembered."
be sure. BRAMSHAW® FreePhone: 1800 507 557