0408 802212 david@kiddslaw.com

PROBLEMS WITH ELECTRONIC LODGEMENT AT THE FAIR WORK COMMISSION

Here are some 2018 cases involving difficulties with electronic lodgement at the Fair Work Commission. In each case, exceptional circumstances were found and an extension of time granted. [2018] FWC 1490 Qld Bosschieter v CSA Services (Jones Family Trust) (s365 application one day late – “Mrs Bosscheiter made a genuine attempt to upload the application in an eligible format, but experienced difficulty as she did not have access to a computer. … Mrs Bosscheiter had a reasonable believe (sic) it had been accepted. Upon being made aware the application was not in an eligible format … Mrs Bosscheiter was proactive in her attempt to resubmit, and had to wait for her friend to return from work to borrow their computer” @19 – extension granted) [2018] FWC 2933 Qld Chartier v Community Solutions Group (exceptional circumstances found where there was an unsuccessful attempt to lodge application the day before time limit expired – A was not able to contact the Commission until the next day as the attempt to lodge was made outside business hours) [2018] FWC 3334 NSW Wignall v White Sneakers P/L (exceptional circumstances found – “The circumstances were uncommon in that due to a technical issue with the Commission’s on-line lodgement process, Mr Wignall’s application was not received at the time of attempted lodgement, and at the time the filing fee was paid” @25) [2018] FWC 2864 Qld Bruschi v BHP Billiton Mitsui Coal P/L (application one day late due to A having problems with e-lodgement – A got a reference number after lodging, but did not realize his attempt to pay with his credit card had...

Recent Employee or Independent Contractor Cases

Employee or Independent Contractor Case [2018] FWC 4038 NSW Barratt-Hassett v PERC Group P/L (initially, the A accepted work with R and invoiced R – subsequently A accepted a formal employment contract, but claimed he was also an employee in the initial period he worked – it was finely balanced, but A held to be an employee from the beginning as he was not running his own business and establishing goodwill) [2018] FWC 4285 Vic Seaver v Trade Fair @ Falls Creek (the A “was a skilled graphic designer who exercised a degree of expertise and autonomy in performing her work. She clearly did not require any direct supervision, but was simply provided with direction by email in regard to what was to be done in respect of each publication. She worked from home and did not have set hours. She was simply provided with direction by email, often close to deadline, and then was expected to do whatever was required to complete the work in accordance with those directions” @21 – A “generally earned around 80 percent of her income from her work with K C Bell Enterprises, although she also indicated that this figure might actually have been higher. However, she did have another part-time job, although this was unrelated to her work as a graphic designer. It also appears that she had some capacity to do other work, given she only worked for the Respondent for around 34 weeks each year, and the hours she worked appeared to be concentrated around publication times. KC Bell Enterprises indicated … it understood Ms Seaver did work on occasions...