Employment law Analysis

Employment legislation in Australia is catered for by a body of laws, precedents and administrative rulings which address the restrictions on, legal rights of working people and their organizations. As such, it mediates many aspects of the relationship between trade unions, employees and employers. Employment law is vital in safeguarding the interests of workers and the employers at the work places. In the contemporary world, agreements between the two parties are of great importance incase of emergence of legal issues in the contract of service.

In the Australian law, a worker is a person who performs a duty under a contractual basis. An employer is a legal entity that gives directions to employees under an agreed contract. Case study In this essay, I seek to address the cases of Steven vs. Brodribb and Hollis vs. Vabu. The employment law comes into play to explain several aspects that influenced the ruling of the case. The different types of terms of the legal contract between the employer and the employees can either be expressed, implied or Impact of Industrial Instruments such as awards.

In an expressed legal argument, the involved parties have a written code that they are obliged to follow to the letter. For example in the case of Steven vs. Brodribb, it was agreed in writing that the former was to conduct his duties as an independent contractor and that the later would have control of his duties in the organization. In an implied type of a legal contract, the some of the aspects of the agreement are not necessarily written but can be verbal and rely on the law or on the facts that are considered obvious by both parties.

A good example of this would be in the case of Steven vs. Brodribb. Steven who was a truck driver did not have to include the traffic laws in his agreement with his contractor, this is because it was already assumed that he was qualified and versant with the Highway Code. This is an example of the how the law comes into play in implied type of a legal contract (Walsh, 2006). In the case of Steven vs.

Brodribb, Steven was an independent contractor meaning that although Brodribb had Steven working for him, he did not have control over what he did and Steven was not answerable to him. Steven was under a contract for service to brodribb. Vicarious liability and tort law in which an employer pays for the mistakes made by his employees comes into the picture since in the first ruling of the case the judge orders brodribb to pay an amount of $60,000. In a second case, Hollies vs.

Vabu, Hollies works as courier in a company known as Vabu where he owns a motorbike and takes with it for jobs at the company. The company management exercises control over the courier and even fixes a tight schedule on which they have to adhere to. However, some of these couriers like Hollies felt that the employer was too stingy or even that they should be treated as independent contractors because they pay their bike maintenance fees and also take care of their insurance cover.

If at all the employer wanted employees he or she would have covered for their bikes maintenance and insurance fee. This shows that Hollis was under a contract of service. Vabu had control over the running of affairs under Hollies. This seemed to be against the contract since he had signed for an independent contractor but the company treated them like employees. These two cases clearly illustrate the definition of a worker’s contract of service. The legal issues arising from the cases are taken into consideration in the essay.