Understanding the Tribunal's Decision on Employee Classification
The Tribunal concluded that Mr. Miastkowski was deemed an 'employee' based on common law principles, leading to Superannuation Guarantee (SG) payments being required by Mr. Probin on his behalf. Key factors considered by the Tribunal include:
1. Control: Mr. Probin exercised significant control over Mr. Miastkowski's daily activities, determining the work to be performed and its timing and location.
2. Integration in Payer's Business: Mr. Miastkowski's commitment primarily to Mr. Probin's work, rather than engaging with third parties, suggested an employment relationship.
3. Risk: Mr. Miastkowski bore little responsibility for rectification works or guaranteeing his work, with Mr. Probin covering costs for mistakes.
4. Basis of Payment: Mr. Miastkowski was paid weekly based on hours worked, rather than task completion, without providing quotes for work.
5. Equipment and Expenses: While Mr. Miastkowski provided some tools, Mr. Probin supplied most materials and safety gear, indicating a dependency.
6. Delegation: Mr. Miastkowski lacked the ability to delegate work, further indicating an employment relationship.
7. Appointment and Termination: Mr. Probin could terminate Mr. Miastkowski's services without notice, despite Mr. Miastkowski having some flexibility in choosing tasks.
For expert advice on employment classification and related matters, contact Tax Ideas Accountants & Advisers at +61 2 83181545 or schedule an appointment through our live calendar.
