You web browser may not be properly supported. To use this site and all its features we recommend using the latest versions of Chrome, Safari or Firefox

The recent case of Natalie Newton (trading as Combined Care for the Elderly) and Commissioner of Taxation [2011] AATA 897 (Newton) has held that workers of an aged-care service were employees rather than independent contractors. Consequently, the taxpayer was liable to pay the superannuation guarantee charge.

The Facts

Natalie Newton (trading under the business name Combined Care for the Elderly) provided community support services to people in need of physical assistance in their homes. The business had a list of workers who it engaged to conduct these services.

A customer would contact the business who in turn would contact one of the workers and offer the work. The worker could either accept or decline the assignment. Each worker had entered into a labour hire agreement with the business and acknowledged that they were independent practitioners/contractors and that the business was not their employer.

The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Act) requires that employers who fail to provide the prescribed minimum level of superannuation to their employees must pay the superannuation guarantee charge (SGC) to the Australian Taxation Office.

The Commissioner issued Ms Newton with SGC assessments for failing to provide adequate superannuation support to her workers over a 6 month period.

At first hearing, the Tribunal had held that Ms Newton was exempt from the SGC because the workers were “paid to do work wholly or principally of a domestic or private nature”. However, that decision was overturned by the Federal Court and the case was sent back to the Tribunal for further consideration.

The key issue for determination by the Tribunal was whether the workers were employees or independent contractors. The answer to that issue would determine whether the business was an employer and therefore liable to pay the SGC.

The Decision

Ms Newton argued that because the workers were independent contractors her business was not their employer and consequently was not liable to pay the SGC. She relied on a number of factors to show that the workers were independent contractors, including that:

  • the workers provided the services pursuant to a signed labour hire agreement
  • the workers were obliged to produce a result, and
  • the contractual agreement between the workers and the business was described as one of an independent contractor.

The Tribunal decided that:

  • The workers were employees. Consequently, the business was an employer under the expanded definitions contained in the Act and therefore liable to pay the SGC.
  • Section 12(3) of the Act provides that if a person works under a contract relating to labour he or she undertakes (whether wholly or principally), then the person is an employee of the other party to the contract. In this case, Section 12(3) of the Act applied despite the parties attempting to describe their contractual relationship as being independent and the workers acknowledging their contractual relationship.
  • In the absence of any evidence from the business that the contract was not "wholly or principally for the labour of the person", the workers were held to be employees for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal relied on the fact that the workers were not free to delegate the work to others, the workers had entered into a labour hire agreement, and there was no evidence that the workers were required to produce a result.

The Lesson

Describing someone as an “independent contractor” in a labour contract is not sufficient to prove that a contractor is not an employee for the purposes of superannuation legislation.

In addition, whether a contractor is actually an employee depends on the particular circumstances of the case including whether the worker is able to freely delegate their work to others and if the worker is required to produce a result.

The contents of this blog post are considered accurate as at the date of publication. However the applicable laws may be subject to change, thereby affecting the accuracy of the article. The information contained in this blog post is of a general nature only and is not specific to anyone’s personal circumstances. Please seek legal advice before acting on any of the information contained in this post.

Thank you for your feedback.

Related blog posts

Consumer and the Law
Liar loans: how mortgage brokers are putting clients at risk

The term ‘liar loans’ has been coined on the back of the Banking Royal Commission. This is because studies have shown almost 40 per cent of loan applications completed through mortgage brokers contained at least one factually incorrect statement. Whether mortgage brokers are providing lenders with incorrect information, or information that is out-of-date, they are putting themselves – and their clients – at risk. A recent study conducted by the Consumer Credit Legal Centre in New South Wales identified some mortgage brokers were breaking the law when filling out loan applications for their clients. Common examples included brokers suggesting their clients provide a different answer...

Planning desk close up documentresize
Consumer and the Law
How to lodge a complaint with Australian Financial Complaints Authority

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) acts as the middleperson between financial firms and consumers or small businesses, offering free and independent dispute resolution services. It deals with complaints about financial advice, insurance, banking and superannuation products and services. While the time limit to lodge a complaint to AFCA is usually between two and six years, the Australian Government recently created the opportunity for those with complaints up to 10 years old to come forward. This means consumers and small businesses have until 30 June 2020 to lodge complaints dating back to 1 January 2008. To lodge a complaint, you must follow AFCA’s process. It is...

How to lodge a complaint with Australian Financial Complaints Authority
Business Law
Proposed Changes to the Franchising Code of Conduct

Franchising is big business in Australia, with approximately 1,120 franchise systems and 79,000 franchise units operating nationally1. As franchising is a diverse sector with characteristics that are unique from other business models, franchises are governed by a mandatory Franchising Code of Conduct (Franchising Code).2 The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recently completed an inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the Franchising Code and has released the Fairness in Franchising Report (Report).3 Some of the key findings and recommendations of the report are discussed below. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an...

Waitress In Black Apron Upload

Start your Free Super Claim Check

You may also be able to claim through your Super insurance policy​. It only takes 3 minutes to find out where you stand.