Edited version of private advice

Authorisation Number: 1052191967738

Date of advice: 22 November 2023

Ruling

Subject: Status of worker

Question 1

Were the identified classifications of Service Providers common law employees of the Principal under subsection 12(1) of the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 (SGAA) for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023?

Answer

Yes.

Question 2

Were the identified classifications of Service Providers employees of the Principal in accordance with subsection 12(3) of the SGAA for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023?

Answer

Yes.

Question 3

If the answer to questions 1 or 2 is yes, would that answer remain the same if the Provider's Agreement was varied by the Variation?

Answer

Yes.

This advice applies for the following period:

1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023

The arrangement commences on:

1 July 2018

Relevant facts and circumstances

Your advice is based on the facts stated in the description of the scheme that is set out below. If your circumstances are different from these facts, this advice has no effect and you cannot rely on it. The fact sheet has more information about relying on ATO advice.

The Principal is a registered ACNC charity providing services to individuals, corporations, government and community organisations.

The Principal currently employs a number of employees to perform various tasks and services.

The Principal also engages a number of volunteers to perform various tasks and services.

In 2019, the Principal began engaging the identified classifications of Service Providers as contractors, believing that this best reflected the relationship between the parties, particularly because:

•         The Service Providers were only required to provide services on an as required basis.

•         The Service Providers were free to provide their services to other end-users.

•         Many of the Service Providers conducted business under their own business name.

Written agreements governed the relationship of all the Service Providers. These contracts were wholly written and only variations in the form of the Variation were ever made, which only applied to two classifications of the identified Service Providers.

To the best of the Principal's knowledge, the service agreements were (in relation to each Service Provider):

•         binding and enforceable

•         not a 'sham contract'

•         a complete record of the contractual relationship between the parties.

•         not subject to any question of equitable, legal, or statuary action affecting the parties agreement.

Prior to the High Court cases (Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd (Personnel) and ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd and Jamsek (Jamsek)) the Principal did not consider the Service Providers were employees for the purposes of subsection 12(1) an/or 12(3) of the SGAA.

The Principal engaged the Service Providers under materially similar contracts, which did not roll over. New contracts were executed with almost identical obligations as necessary.

The Principal is of the view that the Service Agreements did not accurately or completely reflected the totality of the relationship because:

•         the Service Agreements did not allow for the Principal to direct or control the Service Providers

•         the Service Providers were not required to work set hours and made themselves available as they desired

•         the nature of the services to be provided were sporadic in nature

•         the Service Providers were all engaged to work elsewhere.

•         the Service Providers were only paid on satisfactory completion of the agreed services

•         the parties had agreed and acted on the mutual understanding that the Service Providers were not employees, such that amongst other things, the Service Providers were required to:

o   remit their own PAYGW tax and GST

o   issue valid tax invoices as a condition of payment

o   maintain their own insurances.

The Principal states that they concede the totality of the relationship is no longer relevant in consideration of the High Court cases.

After considering legal advice the Principal has formed the view that there is risk that a relationship of employment existed between the Principal and the Service Providers.

Principal's common facts - common law employment - subsection 12(1) of the SGAA

The Principal submits the Service Agreements are materially the same for each of the Service Provider classifications, and contends the arrangements are not indicative of an employer employee relationship because:

•         The Principal could exercise little control over the Service Provider as:

­   the Principal had no contractual power to direct that the services be provided in a particular way

­   the Service Providers were not required to appear as an emanation of the Provider and the Service Agreements contained no dress code, advertising, or other representation obligations

­   the Service Providers were not subject to the Principal's policies and procedures as those policies 'were separate from, and did not form part of the Service Agreements'.

•         The Service Providers were required to remit their own income tax, GST, and render a tax invoice.

•         The Service Providers provided services sporadically, had no contractual hours, with no certainty in their arrangement. There was no routine in their engagements.

•         The Service Agreements had no provision for holiday pay.

•         The Service Providers had specialist technical knowledge.

The Principal has identified aspects of the arrangements which oppose their contentions:

•         The Service Providers did not have the power to delegate or subcontract their services.

•         The Service Providers were renumerated in reference to hours worked.

•         The Service Providers were engaged to provide professional services 'at the direction of' the Principal. The Principal contends that these words relate to the total number of hours worked and the type of services provided, rather than directing the Service Providers in their manner in providing the services.

•         The Service Providers performed services in coordination with other contractors and employees of the Principal.

•         The Service Providers all receive some form of training.

•         Intellectual property created by the Service Providers was assigned to the Principal.

•         The Service Providers were subject to the policies and procedures of the Principal, relevant to the duty of care. These are normal commercial terms.

Principal's common facts: extended definition of employee - subsection 12(3) of the SGAA

The Principal submits that the Service Agreement, as it pertained to the Service Providers, was not a contract wholly or principally for their labour.

The Principal further submits that for each of the separate classifications of Service Providers, the Service Agreement was for a 'given result' in that:

•         The Service Provider was engaged to provide professional services as directed by the Principal, and though the form that this took for each Service Provider varied, the Contract is a record of the intention.

•         The Principal was not required to pay the Service Provider unless the services were satisfactorily completed.

•         The Service Provider did not have a right to delegate or subcontract their services.

The Principal provided information that was specific to the identified groups of Service Providers.

The Principal also provided copies of signed contracts for services and contract Variations for each group of the considered Service Providers. These contract agreements and the contract Variations detail the specific terms and clauses relevant to the individual engagements.

Relevant legislative provisions

Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 subsection 12(1)

Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 subsection 12(3)

Summary

The facts and evidence provided support that the identified classifications of Service Providers were employees of the Principal for the purposes of subsections 12(1) and/or 12 (3) of the SGAA.

Background

Under the SGAA, employers are required to make superannuation contributions into a complying superannuation fund or retirement savings account for the benefit of their eligible employees in accordance with minimum prescribed levels.

The definition of 'employee' for the purposes of the SGAA is found in section 12, which is both a clarifying and extending provision.

Subsection 12(1) of the SGAA states that 'employee' and 'employer' take on their ordinary or common law meaning.

Where the relationship between the parties to a contract is not a common law employment relationship, or there is doubt in respect of the status of a person, the expanded meaning of 'employee' is contained in subsections 12(2) to 12(11) of the SGAA. Of relevance here is subsection 12(3) of the SGAA.

Detailed reasoning

The regulator provisions which apply to determine if a worker is eligible to receive superannuation from the employer under the SGAA are:

•         Subsection 12(1) for which employee and employer have their ordinary meaning.

•         Subsection 12(3) for a person who works under a contract that is wholly and principally for the labour of the person.

Subsection 12(1) of the SGAA

Where a person is found to be eligible under either these sub-sections (or the subsections 12(2),12(4-11)) the 'employer' is required to make superannuation contributions for the 'employee' or be subject to the Superannuation Guarantee Charge under the SGAA.

Determining whether there is a relationship of 'employer and employee' in regard to subsection 12(1) of the SGAA has most recently been dealt with in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd (Personnel) and in ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd and Jamsek (Jamsek).

Personnel involved a labour hire arrangement where it was said that the putative employee was conducting their own business as independent contractors. The worker was engaged to work for a construction company to which the labour hire entity had sent him. In that case that the worker was free to work for others and this was not determinative of the outcome because the same conditions apply to casual workers.

Jamsek was concerned with putative employees who were truck drivers who worked regular hours to transport goods by truck for the putative employer.

Both cases considered the principals of determining the ordinary meaning of 'employee' and 'employer'. In both cases there were written agreements which comprehensively regulated the relationships, and they provided considerable guidance as to the approach to determine the required ordinary meaning.

Personnel

In Personnel the High Court stated the Court's role is to characterise the relationship by examining the totality of the relationship having regard to the parties' rights and obligations contained in the written contract. [1] In this way the Principal is not correct in considering the totality of the relationship is no longer significant.

The High Court stated that where the parties have comprehensively committed the terms of the relationship to a written contract, and no party is disputing the validity of that contract, the characterisation must proceed on the basis of the legal rights and responsibilities established in that written contract.[2]

In the current case there is no dispute regarding the validity of the contract, or its variations therefore we can rely on the written contracts (and variations).

The High Court also concluded that the multifactorial approach that examined all the relations between the parties over the entire history of their dealings was unnecessary and inappropriate.[3] Although consideration of post contractual conduct is permissible in circumstances[4], none of these apply to the current case:

'for a matter to bear upon the ultimate characterisation of a relationship, it must be concerned with the rights and duties established by the parties' contract, and not simply an aspect of how the parties has come to play out in practice but bearing no necessary connection to the contractual obligations of the parties'[5]

However, the Commissioner observed that the well-established practice of examining the totality of the relationship has not been disturbed by Personnel.

The Commissioner considers the long-established employment indicia are still relevant when characterising a contractual relationship between parties. However, they should be considered through the focusing question or prism of whether the putative employee is working in the business of the employer.

This reflects the Commissioner's understanding and application of the business integration test. The High Court has elevated that test as one of the primary focussing aspects of the examination of the contractual terms.

In addition, the High Court has continued the emphasis on the examination of control as a complementary focus to the business integration test.[6]

Advice in response to Principal's contentions for the application of subsection 12(1) of the SGAA

Control

Superannuation Guarantee Ruling SGR 2005/1, Superannuation Guarantee: Who is an employee? (SGR 2005/1) provides the classic 'test' for determining the nature of the relationship between a person who engages another to perform work and the person so engaged is the degree of control which the former can exercise over the latter.[7] A common law employee is told not only what work is to be done, but how and where it is to be done. With the increasing usage of skilled labour and consequential reduction in supervisory functions, the importance of control lies not so much in its actual exercise, although clearly that is relevant, as in the right of the employer to exercise it.[8]

Humberstone v. Northern Timber Mills provides:

'The question is not whether in practice the work was in fact done subject to a direction and control exercised by an actual supervision or whether an actual supervision was possible but whether ultimate authority over the man in the performance of his work resided in the employer so that he was subject to the latter's orders and directions.'

The significance of control in the context of skilled employment Zuijs v. Wirth Brothers Proprietary Ltd (Zuijs) provides:

'What matters is lawful authority to command as far as there is scope for it. And there must always be some common room for it, if only in incidental or collateral matters.'

The Principal contends they had little control over the Service Providers who were not subject to the Applicant's policies and procedures which do not form part of the Service Agreements. However, the Service Provider contracts state:

'You agree to abide by all of the Principal's policies and procedures that may be implemented, varied or replaced (from time to time) by the Principal at its sole discretion. Failure to follow the Principal's policies and procedures may lead to disciplinary action being taken, including termination of the engagement'

The Principal has stated the Service Providers were only subject to the Principal's policies and procedures in relation to duty of care. These are normal commercial terms.

However, the contract, which we can rely on, does not differentiate. All policies and procedures must be followed, or disciplinary action would be taken.

The Principal concedes the Service Providers were engaged to provide professional services 'at the direction of' the Principal. They say these words relate to the total number of hours worked and the type of services provided, rather than directing the Service Providers in their manner in providing the services.

However little control over specialist workers is expected. The Principal states they had little control to direct services to be delivered in a particular way. However, it would be expected the Service Providers, who have specialist technical knowledge, would require a low level of control.

That the Service Providers were trained by the Principal is indicative of some control, as well as, the reporting obligations prescribed in the provided Agreements, requiring the Service Providers to report to the various Managers.

Business Integration

SGR 2005/1, provides in Marshall v Whittaker's Building Supply Co [61], Windeyer J that the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor is:

"rooted fundamentally in the difference between a person who serves his employer in his, the employer's, business, and a person who carries on a trade or business of his own."

Whether a person operates on their own account or in the business of the payer was also considered in Hollis v Vabu:

'Viewed as a practical matter, the bicycle couriers were not running their own business or enterprise, nor did they have independence in the conduct of their operations.'

The Service Providers performed services that suggest the Service Providers were performing tasks in the business of the Principal:

•         in coordination with other contractors and employees of the Principal, and

•         intellectual property created by the Service Providers was assigned to the Principal,

The following did not prevent the Service Providers from working in the Principal's business:

•         They were not subject to a dress code, advertising or representational obligations.

•         They were able to work for other entities or in their own capacity outside of these arrangements.

•         They have a business structure.

How control and integration apply to each of the Service Provider categories is considered in 'Contract Analysis' below.

Advice in response to Principal's contentions for the application of subsection 12(3) of the SGAA

SGR 2005/1 comments that subsection 12(3) of the SGAA:

'..provides that if a person works under a contract that is wholly or principally for the labour of the person, the person is an employee of the other party of the contract.'

In Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet (Dental Corporation) the full Federal Court identified three components:

•         there should be a contract;

•         the contract is wholly or principally for the labour of a person; and

•         the person must work under that contract.

In this case, points one and three are agreed. There were contracts that the Service Providers worked under. There were no provisions for delegation, the Service Providers were required to personally perform the work.

In contention is if that contract was wholly or principally for labour of the Service Providers or for achievement of a result.

SGR 2005/1 provides that a result:

'means the performance of a service by one party for another where the first mentioned party is free to employ their own means (such as third party labour, plant and equipment) to achieve the contractually specified outcome. Satisfactory completion of the outcome is the result for which the parties have bargained'.

Further, 'the consideration is often a fixed sum on completion of the particular job as opposed to an amount referenced by hours worked'. 'If remuneration is payable when, and only when, the contractual conditions have been fulfilled, the remuneration is usually made for producing a given result.'

The Principal's contentions for the application of subsection 12(3) include that the Service Providers were not contracted wholly or principally for their labour. Instead, they are paid to provide a given result in that:

•         'The Service Providers were engaged to provide professional results as directed by the Principal, and though the form that this took for each Service Provider varied, the contract or the variation is a record of this intention.

•         The Principal was not required to pay the Service Providers unless the Services were satisfactorily completed.'

However, each of the provided Service Agreements provide for certain services to be delivered provided during a set contract period, and not in reference to the delivery of a discrete result.

The Service Providers were paid an hourly rate with limitations for earnings during the period the contract applies to.

Other Factors

Other factors which do not alter findings of employee under subsections 12(1) and/or 12(3) of the SGAA:

•         Service Providers required to remit their own income tax, GST, and render a tax invoice is not determinative of the relationship, although would be more indicative of an independent contractor.

•         Service Providers worked sporadically, had no routine or certainty of hours.

•         Referral of clients to the Service Provider's business.

•         Service Providers are required to issue an itemised invoice and detailed time sheets.

•         If Service Providers are unable to provide the service due to illness or injury, they are not required to provide another service provider, which would be expected under a results contract.

The Service Agreement provides the grounds under which the agreement can be terminated, and these are unremarkable, bankruptcy etc. However, the serious misconduct clause suggests the Service Providers have access to:

•         Principal's assets, equipment, systems, and electronic system (there is also a personal use clause)

•         Principal's workplace.

•         Principal's workforce (bullying etc.)

•         Principal's property which may include, keys, security and other cards, documents, files, computers, computer equipment, cards, diaries, telephones, common seals and electronic organisers.

•         That is, they have access to significant levels of Principal's tools.

The Service Providers were to comply with any lawful and reasonable direction by the Principal's and were not to cause any damage to the Principal's reputation.

Should the Service Agreement be terminated before the end of the period (except for serious misconduct) the Service Provider was required to assist in finding a replacement, they were not obligated to deliver one to complete the contracted services (which would be expected if paid for a result).

Should the Service Provider be unable to provide the services due to illness or injury, they are not required to provide another Service Provider. It is unremarkable that they not being paid for the work they did not perform.

As discussed previously, all rights to intellectual property rests with the Principal and this would be expected where the Service Provider is working in the Principal's business.

The Service Providers were stipulated not to be employees and therefore were not entitled to any leave or other employment benefits under the agreement. Not being paid for leave does not prevent the Service Providers from being casual employees under subsections (12(1) and/or 12(3) of the SGAA.

That the Service Providers were trained by the Principal supports at least the scope of control.

All other clauses in the Service Agreement are not evidential for SGAA purposes.

Contract analysis

Service Providers - classification 1

Service Providers - classification 1 are engaged to deliver Programs to individuals. The Principal has described this program as:

•         being part of the services it is in the business to deliver.[9]

•         they create and organise the program, but delivering it is outside of its normal business.[10]

The Service Providers - classification 1 bring expertise in the delivery and facilitation of such programs.[11]They were required to be one of a list of relevant occupations.

These highly skilled Service Providers - classification 1 were engaged to deliver the Principal's programs on the Principal's 'behalf'[12] That is, the Service provider - classification 1 were delivering the Principal's program.

It is unremarkable that the ordinary employees of the Principal do not have the required skills or qualification/s to deliver the programs.

The Service Providers - classification 1 were required to attend briefing days and undertake quality control and outcome monitoring.

The provided Agreement of the Service Provider - classification 1 was for a maximum of 118 hours in total and it is contended that once the result of a successfully completed program was met, the Agreement ends.

However, the Service Provider's contract does not stipulate the delivery of a number of components of the program, instead it stipulates the hours which they can be paid for.

Individual agreement of Service Provider - classification 1

The individual Service Agreement for Service Provider - classification 1provides the Service Provider was tasked with the provision of program sessions.

The Service Provider - classification 1 was engaged for the period XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX.

The Service Provider - classification 1 was engaged for up to 118 hours, allocated to induction, session delivery, discharge reporting and session planning. While this suggests some possibility to allocate hours paid to delivery of sessions, this view is not supported by engagement for up to a number of hours. For a finding of result it would be expected he would be engaged to deliver a set number of sessions for the prescribed amounts.

The Service Provider - classification 1 was paid $XX.XX per hour for total of 118 hours equivalent to $X,XXX.XX, including GST and compensation for casual leave loading, after hours, travel and short-term contract. Which supports the Service Provider - classification 1 had been engaged for a casual position.

The Service Provider - classification 1 was required to report to a manager employed by the Principal and was required to deliver the service personally, at mutually agreed sites. This suggests a level of control.

Service Provider - classification 2

The individual Service Agreement for Service Provider - classification 2provides the Service Provider was tasked with providing services to the Program and it specified it is deemed to be a contractor arrangement.

The Service Provider - classification 2 was engaged for the period XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX (six months).

The Service Provider - classification 2 was engaged at the rate of $XXX per contract hour for a maximum of 7.5 hours per week, to a maximum of $XX,XXX for the life of the agreement.

The Service Provider - classification 2 was required to report to a Manager employed by the Principal and was required to deliver the service personally, at mutually agreed sites.

All other clauses in the Service Agreement are not evidential for SGAA purposes.

Paid through a company

The Principal contends the Service Provider - classification 2 was engaged through a company and renumeration was paid to the Company acting as trustee for a Family Trust. However, the Service Agreement engaged the Service Provider - classification 2 in their personal capacity so, this payment arrangement does not disrupt that fact.

Variation

The variation to this contract dated XX/XX/XXXX provided clarity around payment. Where the Principal canceled a scheduled session, the Service Provider - classification 1 or 2 was not paid if more than 24 hours' notice has been provided and only was paid for the first day where less than 24 hours has been provided.

If the Service Provider - classification 1 or 2 was ill or injured, the Service Provider was required to advise the Principal as soon as reasonably practical and the Service Provider was not paid for that session.

Force Majeure applies in that neither party will be responsible for delay or failure to perform the agreement where the failure is beyond the reasonable control.

It is not unexpected the Service Provider - classification 1 or 2 would not be renumerated if the services are not provided. It is unclear how, as contended, these clauses indicate 'the given result achieved by the Service Provider - groups 1 and 2 takes paramountcy to all other obligations'. Or how that relates to eligibility under subsections 12(1) and/or 12(3) of the SGAA.

Service Providers - classification 3

The Service Providers - classification 3 were engaged to provide quality control and safety, as well as provide business advice.

The Principal arranged for them to meet monthly with employees providing certain services and four times per year with volunteers providing certain services. Between four and ten sessions were run by the Service Provider - group 3 per month. They also performed debriefing services to independently ensure the wellbeing of the Principal's employees and volunteers. They were engaged irregularly to train, supervise and report findings in regard to the Principal's employees and volunteers.

They brought expertise and skills which the Principal wouldn't otherwise have access to. They must have had an accredited Practice Supervision Qualifications and be registered with an appropriate body. It is understood they worked for other organisations and had their own client base.

The Principal contends they were unlikely to be employees because:

•         They were used ad hoc

•         Provided services of a business consulting nature

•         Had expertise outside the ordinary work of the Principal

•         Clearly worked in a business of their own.

The Service Agreement for the individual Service Provider - classification 3 provides that the Service Provider was tasked with supervision of specific staff and was deemed to be a contractor.

The Service Provider - classification 3 was engaged for 12 months commencing on XX/XX/XXXX.

The Service Provider - classification 3 was engaged at the rate of $XXX per contract hour (inclusive of GST). The Service Provider's hours ranged between zero and 16 hours per month which represents a maximum of six group supervision sessions inclusive of set up time, individual debriefing sessions and administration time.

The Service Provider - classification 3 was stipulated not to be an employee and therefore was not entitled to any leave or other employment benefits under the agreement. Not being paid for leave does not prevent the Service Provider from being a casual employee under subsections (12(1) and/or 12(3) of the SGAA.

The Service Provider - classification 3 was required to report to the Manager employed by the Principal and was required to deliver the service personally, at mutually agreed sites. This suggests a level of control.

All other clauses in the Service Agreement are not evidential for SGAA purposes.

Service Providers - classification 4

Service Providers - classification 4 were engaged to deliver a range of corporate, government and organisational training. These programs generated revenue for the Principal to fund its other programs.

The Principal created training programs but did not have the employees or expertise to deliver them. The Principal also provided marketing and administration support for these programs.

Service Providers - classification 4 were required to attend a briefing and introduction day and were required to have appropriate qualifications.

The Service Providers - classification 4 were delivering the Principal's own training programs which the Principal actively supported, and received revenue from. This supports the Service Providers were working in the business of the Principal.

The Principal contends the intention of the parties is linked precisely to the delivery of the service, rather than personal efforts.

The Service Agreement for the individual Service Provider - classification 4 provides the Service Provider was tasked with providing training sessions and was deemed to be a contractor.

The Service Provider - classification 4 was engaged for the period XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX (six months).

The Service Provider - classification 4 was engaged at various rates of pay:

•         $xxx per quarter day (1.5 to 2.5 hrs delivery)

•         $xxx per half day (3.4 to 5hrs)

•         $xxx per full day (5-8 hrs delivery)

•         $xx per hours for required internal training

•         $xxx one off payment to preparefor training.

These payments were for delivery of training, set up and pack up time, post training reports and collection and return of training materials.

The Service Provider - classification 4 was stipulated not to be an employee and therefore was not entitled to any leave or other employment benefits under the agreement. Not being paid for leave did not prevent the Service Provider from being a casual employee under subsections (12(1) and/or 12(3) the SGAA.

The Service Provider - classification 4 was required to report to the Commercial Services Manager was required to deliver the service personally, at mutually agreeable sites.

All other clauses in the Service Agreement are not evidential for SGAA purposes.

Conclusion

Considering all the available facts and evidence, we are satisfied that the identified classifications of Service Providers were employees of the Principal for the purposes of subsections 12(1) and/or 12 (3) of the SGAA.

[1] Personnel at [61], per Kiefel CJ, Keane and Edelman JJ. See also [162] and [173], per Gordon J, with whom Steward J relevantly agreed at [203].

[2] Personnel at [59], per Kiefel CJ, Keane and Edelman JJ. See also [173], per Gordon J, with whom Steward J relevantly agreed at [203].

[3] Personnel at [18], [55] and [59], per Kiefel CJ, Keane and Edelman JJ, and [185-189], per Gordon J, with whom Steward J relevantly agreed at [203].

[4] Personnel at [43] and [59], per Kiefel CJ, Keane and Edelman JJ.

[5] Personnel at [61].

[6] Decision Impact Statement, ATO View of Decision, Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd.

[7] Stevens v. Brodribb (1986) 160 CLR 16 at 24, per Mason J and CLR 35, per Wilson and Dawson JJ

[8] Stevens v. Brodribb (1986) 160 CLR 16 at 24, per Mason J and CLR 36, per Wilson and Dawson JJ. In Stevens v. Brodribb, the High Court was adjusting the notion of 'control' to modern industrial conditions and, in doing so, continued the developments in Zuijs (1955) 93 CLR 561 and Humberstone v. Northern Timber Mills (1949) 79 CLR 389. The control test as articulated in Stevens v. Brodribb was cited and adopted with approval by the majority of the High Court in Hollis v. Vabu.

[9] 5.2(2) Annexure A of application.

[10] 8.3 Annexure A of application.

[11] 8.2 Annexure A of application.

[12] 8.3 Annexure A of Application