Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
|dc.identifier.citation||Australian Journal of Labour Law, 2012; 25:258-282||en|
|dc.description.abstract||An inquiry into sham contracting conducted by the Australia Building and Construction Commission has once again highlighted the difficulty in determining which work relationships should be covered by labour laws. Recent judgments from the Federal Court, and in particular a landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court, suggest a greater willingness to find that workers are in substance being hired as employees, even in the face of carefully drafted contracts that present them as independent contractors; but not all judges are prepared to place so strong an emphasis on the economic reality of a relationship. In this article, we identify the different meanings that the term ‘sham contracting’ can be given, and review evidence as the prevalence of disguised employment. We argue that despite the recent shifts in the way the common law tests for employment are being applied, there remains a compelling case for a statutory definition that would make it harder to disguise employees as contractors.||en|
|dc.description.statementofresponsibility||Cameron Roles and Andrew Stewart||en|
|dc.publisher||Butterworths, Division of Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd||en|
|dc.rights||Copyright © 2012 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.||en|
|dc.subject||Contracting; contractors; contract of employment||en|
|dc.title||The reach of labour regulation: tackling sham contracting||en|
|dc.identifier.orcid||Stewart, A. [0000-0002-9758-3753]||en|
|Appears in Collections:||Law publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.