Contract For Service vs. Contract of Service
Distinguishing between a contract of service (employee) and a contract for services (independent contractor) is vital in determining workers rights, and the obligations owed by their employers. Sometimes it is not clear whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor, which can lead to disputes between workers and employers. This essay discusses how to distinguish between a contract of service and a contract for services by looking at the intention of the parties then, by using 4 tests established by the Courts. It also looks at the reasons it is important to distinguish between an employee and an individual contractor because of the differing rights obtained by employees and independent contractors. First the history about how the employer and worker agreement was previously decided, by looking at the Employment Contracts Act, changed to looking at the Employment Relations Act to distinguish.Previously the Employment Contracts Act 1991 clearly expressed “contractual intentions of the parties prevailed over all other considerations” (http://www.bzone.co.nz/employment/0,,1836-981618,00.html) so if the contract was entirely in writing, that was the end of the inquiry. But now, under the new law, section 6(2), of the . . .
If not, then that person is more likely to be an employee. The main change from using the Employment Contracts Act to distinguish the relationship to using the Employment Relations Act was that under the Employment Contracts Act, clearly expressed contractual intentions of the parties prevailed over all other considerations whereas section 6 of the Employment Relations Act directs the Employment Court and Authority to “determine the real nature of the relationship. The court held that section 6 of the Employment Relations Act changed the law regarding the employment status. Whether the main company is accountable if the person who did the work is an employee or if the person who did the work is an independent contractor and therefore be accountable. In this case the Real Estate agents were found to be an integral part of the agency’s business and therefore were employees. Where no contrasting intention is evident, it may be assumed that the parties intended to create the type of relationship that is usual in the industry. Such matters include control of working or evidence of carrying on business on one's own account and other factors …Thus, it must always be a question whether the arrangement that the parties have made is more consistent with a contract of service [i. The intention of relationships can also change over time altering the employment relationship (http://www. Kioa’s personal grievance claim was once again dismissed (http://www. It is only one of the relevant matters the Court must consider. These will now be discussed in more depth.
Common topics in this essay:
Employment Court, Relations Act, Barry Travis, Dorris Waters, , Economic Reality, Court Appeal, Court Authority, Real Estate, Contracts Act, independent contractor, contract service, employment relations, contract services, relations act, employment relations act, nature relationship, service contract, contract service contract, service contract services, test looks, integration test, control test, real nature relationship, employment contracts act, |
Acceptance Essays
