Recently, I was asked to comment on how an employer-of-record (EoR) arrangement might affect an on-hire firm’s employment and labour hire licensing responsibilities. It seems that there’s a bit of a view circulating to the effect that, if you put in place one of these EoR arrangements with a payroll company, you can avoid both sets of responsibilities. Frankly, I doubt that you can.
And if you try to do so, I think you could end up with egg on your face… or worse still, with residual employment obligations (for tax, super, redundancy, unfair dismissal and the like), as well as leaving yourself open to a range of claims for anything from involvement in misleading conduct in respect of an offer of employment[i] all the way through to sham contracting and labour hire licence avoidance.
Employer of Record (EoR)
Firstly, let’s clarify what I mean by an EoR.
An EoR is a third party that appears “on the record” as the employer of your workers. It’s a common arrangement within corporate groups of related entities. One entity in the group will go “on record” as employer for workers in the group. It will handle payroll and will probably be the named employer in the employment contract. It will issue pay slips and pay summaries and remit tax and super. These arrangements are often unravelled in insolvency proceedings, where group entities that thought they were shielded from employer responsibilities can be left having to pay up.
Payroll Services Providers
It’s also a common feature of many arrangements made by on-hire firms for the appointment of a payroll services provider. The contract of appointment might even include the individual worker as a party and might go to considerable lengths to insist that the payroll company must employ the individual. I’ll talk some more about those contracts (and some of their common flaws) in a later post on the topic.
Incorporated Worker Entities (IWEs)
You can also encounter aspects of employer-of-record issues when you’re dealing with a worker owned and controlled company through which the worker operates.
We’re talking, here, about those entities that are effectively the alter ego of the individual who actually performs the work. Usually, the entity is engaged to provide the required services (e.g., ITC services) and it is left to the entity to employ or engage the individual worker.
If that’s the arrangement you’re working with, you’d want to make pretty sure that the IWE has employed the individual and that the terms of the employment are comprehensively set out in a written contract between the IWE and the worker. Otherwise, you might find that any looseness or uncertainty, or any mistake about the form of contract used, opens the door to an inquiry about whether you, in fact, might be the employer.
We’ve now looked briefly at three different arrangements under which a third party might be identified as the EoR, and we’ve looked at the sort of things that the EoR might be doing.
But, for present purposes, none of that means that the EoR is necessarily the true employer.
The True Employer and How To Find It
The true employer will be the entity which, on an examination of the totality of the relationship, actually controls the work relationship.
Now, you’re probably going to say that the Golden Trio of recent High Court Cases[ii] put an end to the multi-factor/ totality of the relationship test, and that we can only now have regard to the terms of the contract.
Well, that is mostly true … if we’re trying to decide if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor – that is to say, if were trying to decide the work status question.
But it seems it may not be true if we’re trying to answer the different question of who is the employer – the employer identity question. At least, that’s what the NSW Supreme Court recently said in Spitfire Corp.[iii]
And it seems that the FWC is now finding reasons to distinguish the Golden Trio Cases – even on the work status question.[iv] So, unless your contract is wholly in writing, pretty tight, not a sham, and not unsuited to the use to which you’ve put it, you might still find yourself having to answer some embarrassing questions about how your relationship actually works.
Taking all this into account, can we be confident that entering into an EoR arrangement with a related entity, a payroll provider, or an Incorporated Worker Entity will relieve an on-hire provider from its employer or labour hire responsibilities.
I don’t think we can. That’s my take on it.
But you can make your own mind up about that!
Andrew C. Wood
[i] Australian Consumer Law s. 31.
[ii] WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato (2021) 95 ALJR 681;  HCA 23 (“Workpac”); Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd  HCA 1 (“Personnel Contracting”); ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek  HCA 2 (“ZG Operations”).
[iv] See Waring v Hage Retail Pty Ltd  FWC 540, where, at paras  to  Deputy President Anderson summarized the principles in the High Court’s decisions in Personnel Contracting and ZG Operations. DP Anderson’s summary was subsequently cited with approval by the Full Bench in Azad v Hammond Park Family Practice Pty Ltd T/A Jupiter Health Warnbro  FWCFB 66 at para . Hage Retail is noteworthy because of the way in which DP Anderson applied the legal principles to the facts of that case in order to find scope to conduct an inquiry which extended well beyond the strict terms of what purported to be the employment contract.