Let’s Shed Light on Recruitment Fees!

 

Slide1Temp-to-Perm Fees, Agency-Switching Fees, Introduction Fees and Release Fees.

I hope you’ll join me when we shed light on the topic of Recruitment Fees in two separate webinars planned for Thursday 22nd November and Thursday 29th November at 10:30 am AEDT.

In our first webinar, you’ll learn how to make binding and enforceable recruitment fee agreements.

In our second webinar, you’ll learn how to manage fee recruitment disputes ethically and professionally.

You can find out more about the webinars in my Recruiters’ Casebook blog here.

 

Andrew C. Wood, Hon FRCSA (Life)

Two Webinars about Recruitment Fees

I’m looking forward to presenting two webinars on recruitment fee topics later this month. I’m looking forward to it because it’s a topic that I’m constantly asked about and one that needs to be mastered in the interests of promoting and maintaining professional standards in the recruitment and staffing industry.

Slide1Webinar #1: Make Binding & Effective Agreements (22nd Nov. 2019  at 8:30am AEDT)

In the first session, we will discuss how to make binding and effective recruitment fee agreements that will reduce the cost of disputes and help get your fees paid.

You’ll learn about:

  • basics of contract
  • the battle of forms – Does the client’s purchase order trump your standard terms?
  • traps when using standard form terms of business
  • State and Territory employment agent regulation
  • what happens if your terms of business are not signed?
  • terms of business that need special treatment.

You can find the Webinar #1 Eventbrite registration link here.

RF2Webinar #2: Handle Disputes Ethically & Professionally (29th Nov. 2019 at 8:30 am AEDT)

In the second session, you will learn how to handle recruitment fee disputes professionally and ethically to preserve goodwill, reputation, and to improve payment outcomes.

You’ll learn about:

  • common causes of recruitment fee disputes
  • common defences to recruitment fee claims
  • traps to avoid when involved in disputes
  • RCSA Code of Conduct and Grievance Intervention Guidelines
  • pathways to resolution
  • the benefit of early intervention.

You can find the Webinar #2 Eventbrite registration link here.

I hope you’ll join me. And if you have questions about the topic, please feel free to send them to me ahead of the event.

 

Andrew C. Wood, Hon FRCSA (Life)

 

 

 

Do Victoria’s Christmas Talent Agencies and Incorporated Christmas Talent Need Labour Hire Licences?

This Article May Contain Sensitive Material

For any youthful readers of this piece, let me start by saying that we all know that the real Father Christmas lives at the North Pole with Mother Christmas, the Pixies, Rudolph and the other reindeer.

And we all know that all the friendly people who run around in costume – the Santas, Mothers Christmas (I hope that’s the correct plural), the Pixies, the Wise Persons, Shepherds, Angels, and pantomime camels – let’s call them the Christmas Talent – are just helping out. It could be a franchise, I’m not sure. I haven’t looked at it.

At least, I hope we all know that Christmas Talent is mostly pretend. Nevertheless, it’s always fun to see them because we know that when they start popping up in the stores, Christmas is not too far away.

I’m Concerned

Now here’s my concern.

Up until now, a lot of the Christmas Talent have been sourced through talent agencies. Up until now, that’s not been a problem in Victoria – but now it might be.

It might be a problem because if you’re supplying workers (let’s say Christmas Talent) to another person (let’s say a department store) to perform work in and as part of the store’s business or undertaking (seems likely), then you might need a labour hire licence.

This test is sometimes called an “integration test”. It’s not easy to apply, and it can depend on subtle, fact-sensitive inquiries that can only be determined authoritatively by a court. It can also have some pretty unexpected results.

Queensland & South Australia

Queensland and South Australia got this right because in those States talent agencies are subject to private employment agency regulation in addition to labour hire licensing.

So, Queensland and South Australia both created an exemption from the need to have a labour hire licence if you are acting solely as a private employment agency.[1]

Victoria

But there’s no similar exemption in Victoria. So, if you’re supplying a worker to do work in and as part of another person’s business or undertaking, you’ll possibly need a licence (unless you can bring yourself within one of the other exceptions).

Also in Victoria, if you’re sourcing and placing workers (let’s say Christmas Talent) with clients who are engaging them directly as independent contractors, and you continue to handle payroll or other aspects of the placement administration, you’ll possibly need a licence (unless you can bring yourself within one of the other exceptions).

Incorporated Christmas Talent

It gets even more complicated if your Christmas Talent is self-incorporated – i.e. they’re working through their own small company. That’s because their own small company is supplying the individuals who perform the work and therefore needs to hold a licence in its own right (unless it can bring itself within one of the exceptions).

Fortunately, there is an exception for small companies that have no more than two directors and only supply their directors who participate in management or share in the profits.

But that exception will only go so far. An exempt company couldn’t supply say, Three Wise Men – apart from whatever difficulties they might have in sourcing three wise men (old joke). Two would be OK provided they were both directors who participated in management or shared in the profits.

Likewise, a pantomime camel needs two people (front end and back end). That would be OK provided both ends were directors who participated in management or shared in the profits. But if one end gets sick – they’re going to end up with a two-legged camel unless they’ve got a labour hire licence. That’s because substitution requires a third person.

Same deal with Rudolph. And if you’re thinking of hiring the Von Trapp Family Carol Singers – better check their labour hire licence unless they’re incorporated and you’re only wanting two of them!

Although there’s an exemption for incorporated workers, it doesn’t extend to family partnerships or other unincorporated business structures.[2]

Call Me a Grinch!

I could go on… But you’ll have the gist of it by now, and you can perhaps see the problem that arises when labour-hire licensing is introduced on a universal coverage basis without being targeted to the sectors where it’s really needed.

Did anyone think this would be an outcome when the scheme was proposed? Of course, they didn’t. The States were urged to adopt targeted schemes. The Victorian Forsyth Inquiry even recommended it.  But those urgings and recommendations were mostly ignored.

So if you’re hiring Christmas Talent in Victoria this year or if you’re working as Incorporated Christmas Talent, whatever other checks you do, be sure to check that any necessary labour hire licence issues are covered.

Boy Riding Camel

 

 

 

Andrew C. Wood

 

 

[1] It can get tricky if you’re doing more than acting purely as a private employment agency – say handling payroll or administration.

[2] South Australia fixed this up by Gazettal on 26 September 2019. Although the exemption is still limited to a maximum of two workers.

 

Tuesday TalkAbout: a Free Short Webinar Series

contact-us-hand-speech-bubble-copy-space-picture-id1130100468 (1)

Some of you may know from earlier posts that I’m currently exploring how positive attitudes towards continuing professional development can support recruitment & staffing practitioners in meeting regulatory and industry requirements to acquire and maintain prescribed levels of relevant professional knowledge. It’s part of my response to RCSA’s #loveyourwork initiative.

So, I’ve put together a series of ten short (30-minute) webinars covering topics of importance and interest to members of the RCSA-hosted Labour  Hire Licensing & Regulation (Aust & NZ) LinkedIn Group, which I moderate.

The webinars have been scheduled, at members’ request, to take place at 8.30 am on a Tuesday. The webinars are presented using the ZOOM webinar platform. You can ask questions anonymously or send them to me ahead of the webinar if you like.

Here’s the program. It has been designed to inform and to encourage discussion amongst members who are keen to advance their continuing professional development.

You can register for the free webinars by following the links provided. I hope you’ll take part!

 

2019 Program

15/10/19 Independent Contractors: Removing the Grey Areas (Completed)

Join us for our “Tuesday TalkAbout” webinar when we’ll be shedding light on the topic of independent contracting. What is it, really? How is it different from other work relationships like employment? Why does it matter? Register for the free on-demand webinar here

22/10/19 Labour Hire Licensing: Using Conditions to Get Over the Line (Completed)

We launch a discussion about how to access the regulators’ power to grant conditional licences and examine actual conditions that have been used to support the grant of licences that might otherwise not have been approved.  Register for the free on-demand webinar here

29/10/19 Labour Hire Licensing: Rejections, Appeals & Alternatives (Completed)

Our discussion of labour-hire licencing extends into the area of objections, rejections, appeals, and alternatives. We look at some actual objections, suspensions and cancellations and discuss how to deal with them. Register for the free on-demand webinar here

05/11/19 Service Continuity: Tips & Traps for Agency Work (Completed)

What is the status of your agency workers between assignments?  Can they accrue long service leave and other service-based entitlements when not working? Has the status been affected by recognition of the so-called permanent-casual?  We examine two common models of agency worker engagement and discuss their pros and cons. Register for the free on-demand webinar here

12/11/19 Casual Conversion: How to Use Evidence-Based Responses (Completed)

You will be familiar with casual conversion provisions in awards and agreements. But how do you respond to a casual conversion request? We discuss the type of evidence you can use, how to interpret it, and how you might present it when responding to a casual conversion request. Register for the free on-demand webinar here

19/11/19 Labour Contracting, Supply Chains & Service Networks: Explained

Although it is common to talk about labour supply chains, there are actually very few situations where it occurs. That’s because labour is different from other commodities. We discuss different models of labour contracting and look at examples of recruitment & staffing agency service networks to see what is really going on. Register for this webinar here

26/11/19 Modern Slavery & Vulnerable Worker Protections

How are you going to respond when your clients ask for a report about what steps you’ve been taking to combat modern slavery and the exploitation of vulnerable workers in their supply chains? We build on our understanding of labour contracting, supply chains and service networks to discuss how you can respond positively to your client’s (and regulators’) requirements. Register for this webinar here

03/12/19 Certification Schemes as Regulatory Alternatives: Pros and Cons

Can industry certification schemes be viable alternatives to statutory licensing schemes? We discuss different types of certification schemes and consider their pros and cons as regulatory alternatives. In doing so, we’ll also look at Regulatory Impact Statement that supported the Victorian licensing scheme to see how it worked. What assumptions were made? Were they correct? How might a federal RIS and outcome differ? Register for this webinar here

10/12/19 Freelance Platforms: New Idea or New Technology?

You might have a view about whether freelance platforms present a threat to the industry or whether they are part of the industry. But have you ever looked into their terms and conditions to see how they run and where they fit within the industry? We discuss actual examples of some freelance platform terms and conditions to see how they operate and why they are different from your usual terms and conditions. Register for this webinar here

17/12/19 Piece Rates: Explained

We discuss piece rates under some common awards and consider how to manage risk when applying them. What do courts look for? How can you get that sort of information from your clients? How can you protect yourself against underpayment claims? Register for this webinar here

 

Andrew C Wood Hon FRCSA (Life)

The Recruiters’ Casebook and WorkAccord Get Together for a Free Short Webinar Series

The Recruiters’ Casebook and WorkAccord are getting together to present two free webinars as they test their new webinar platform.

We’d love you to join us and give us your feedback.

Webinar 1

Competition & Consumer Law Brief – The New Playing Field.

Friday, 21 September 2018, 10.00 am to 10.30 am AEST.

Modern Universal Business Concept Icon SetAs job-based employment seemingly evolves toward job-based entrepreneurship in the freelance, contracting and gig economies, it’s becoming increasingly important for recruitment, contracting and staffing businesses to keep up to date with competition & consumer law developments that impact their sector and their incorporated workers.

In this free session,  Andrew C. Wood will present a short briefing to business owners & managers, consultants and contractors about the role of the ACCC in creating and supporting a fair and level playing field.

Andrew will cover the following topics:

  • Authorisations and protective notifications
  • Banning orders, penalties & remedies
  • Cartel prohibitions
  • Collective bargaining and the proposed small business class exemption
  • Misleading job ads
  • Statutory guarantees and unlawful attempts at exclusion
  • Unconscionable conduct
  • Unfair standard form, small business contracts
  • Unsolicited services (and claims for payment).

Register Now

 

Webinar 2

Transaction to Transformation

Friday, 28 September 2018, 10.00 am to 10.30 am AEST.

Modern Universal Business Concept Icon SetThe “factory model” of services production and supply, based on efficiency in repeating similar transactions has been disrupted by Artificial Intelligence. Astute suppliers in the recruitment, contracting & staffing industry are already talking about a major shift from transaction to transformation.

But what does that look like? How is it managed? How is progress measured? How is it supported by business models and the terms and conditions that underpin them? And is the transaction still important?

In this free introductory level webinar that has been designed for recruitment, contracting & staffing agency business owners and managers, we will begin to explore some of these questions and set a pathway for future discussion.

Register Now

Please send a shout out to your friends and colleagues. We look forward to seeing you there!

MegaMan

 

Andrew C. Wood

Qld Treasury Consultation Papers on Regulations to Support Labour Hire Licensing Act: Quick Observations

Queensland Treasury has just released two consultation papers on the regulations to support that State’s Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017.

One paper deals with operational issues (including the fit and proper person test and reporting); the other is about coverage and exclusions.

Looks like there needs to be some work done; and that an attempt will be made to resolve with policy what can’t be resolved by regulations.

Coverage problems are now surfacing; and the consultation papers are still strangely silent on anything much to do with licence conditions.

Licence fees range between $1,000 and $5,000.

Reporting requirements may be expanded – but, it would be a good idea to start with a clear statement of why the government needs additional (including confidential) information; how it proposes to handle it; and what it proposes to do with it.

Some regulatory solutions to the challenges posed by a hastily assembled Act seem possible; but they will not be easy to achieve. Internal labour hire within corporate groups is proving to be “particularly problematic”, as the government tries to work itself out of a tight corner.

Submissions are due by 2 February 2018.

You can read about the release and find the consultation papers here.

https://www.treasury.qld.gov.au/fair-and-safe-work/industrial-relations/regulation-labour-hire-industry/consultation-labour-hire-licensing-act/

Businessman & Newspaper

Andrew C. Wood

Will your outsourced payroll arrangements alter your requirements to have a labour hire license? Probably not.

As attempts by Australia’s labor states to create a multi-jurisdiction, labour hire licensing scheme gain critical mass, it is becoming more important, and perhaps a little easier, to make comparisons and ask questions at a practical level rather than merely at a policy or ideological level.

One such question, which seems to be causing concern amongst industry participants, relates to the involvement of payroll providers in labour hire arrangements. Kudos, therefore, to the industry participants, who have appreciated the detail and complexity of the legislation well enough to formulate the following question:

Will our outsourced payroll arrangements alter our requirements to have a labour hire license?

The answer is, “Probably not”.

Let’s say you provide labour hire services – i.e. you engage a worker and supply that worker to another person (a host) to do work.

Your engagement of that worker creates an obligation – and it’s your obligation – to pay your worker for her or his work. You can’t escape that obligation by entering into a pay-when-paid-by-client arrangement. And, importantly, you can’t escape it by outsourcing your payroll function to a third-party payroll provider. It’s still your source obligation; and it is sourced in the work/wage or work/remuneration bargain that you made with your worker.

Neither, in most cases, can you transfer your worker to the payroll company. As the High Court has reminded us:

No worker is an asset in the employer’s balance sheet to be bought or sold.

So, whilst ever you continue to engage the worker, you have a payment obligation – even if a payroll company is going to perform it for you.

Now, I’ve heard it suggested from time to time, that terms and conditions of appointment of a payroll provider often attempt to shift responsibility for engaging the worker onto the payroll provider. They might say something like:

 You, the payroll provider, agree that you employ the worker and are responsible for all employer obligations.

In my opinion, you will have to be especially careful if your terms of business say anything like that – and that’s so regardless of whether you are the payroll provider or the labour hire provider.

The work/wage or work/remuneration bargain is made between the engager and the worker. It’s not something that you can transfer on paper – even if you have a paper consent from the worker and payroll provider – because the paper transfer and consent might not reflect the reality of the situation if it’s actually you, who continue to supply the worker to your client and are getting paid for it.

Even though there may be some very limited circumstances in which you could successfully transfer a worker’s engagement to a payroll company, it may still be important for you to ensure that you have a licence.

Remember, you can’t transfer a worker whom you haven’t first engaged. How did the worker become engaged with you in the first place? Did you advertise, or hold out that you were willing to provide labour hire services? Under all three state schemes, you must not advertise or hold yourself out as willing to provide labour hire services unless you have a licence that is in force.

If your attempt to appoint a payroll provider is designed to circumvent or avoid an obligation imposed upon you by the labour hire licensing legislation, you may also have committed an avoidance offence. Your client, and indeed your payroll provider, may be obligated to report the attempt as an avoidance arrangement under the reporting provisions of the legislation.

If you DO successfully transfer the worker to the payroll company, remember:

  • It’s probably not just the payroll function that you have transferred – it’s likely to be pretty much the whole show; and it might be difficult to know what your client will be paying you for.

Ask yourself: Are you still providing what you agreed with your client you would provide? If you’re no longer providing what you agreed with your client to provide, you might find that your agreement with your client (including its terms and conditions) will be swept aside by a court, as happened in Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Holdings Pty Ltd.[i]

  • Perhaps you’re being paid a type of pay-as-you-go placement fee and you’re really acting in the role of a private employment agent (PEA) providing placement services.

Ask yourself: Do your terms of business support that characterization of your arrangement; and do they accurately reflect the arrangement?

  • Even if that is the case, you may still require a labour hire license if, as a PEA, you are doing anything more than merely providing a recruitment or placement service.

For example: If you are arranging safety inductions, PPE,  accommodation,  transport, message handling to coordinate worker attendance at the worksite etc, you will not have the benefit of the private employment agent exception under the Queensland and South Australian legislation; and you may be caught by the extended coverage provisions in the Victorian legislation that relate to PEA’s, who arrange accommodation; or Contractor Management Companies, who recruit and place independent contractors.

  • You may also require a PEA licence in those states and territories that still have them.

Ask yourself: Do you need and do you have a PEA licence?

  • Your arrangement is likely to convert the payroll provider into a labour hire provider if the payroll provider now has to supply the worker to the user or “host”.

Ask yourself: Does your payroll provider have a labour hire licence? If not, you may need to consider whether you have an ancillary liability arising from placing workers with unlicensed labour hire providers. The ancillary liability penalties can be as severe as those imposed upon the principal offender.

  • You may have made a type of split placement – i.e. you have placed the worker operationally with the host, but administratively with the payroll provider. In doing so, you may have implicated your client in the offence of dealing with an unlicensed labour hire provider if either you or your payroll providers are unlicensed.

If your attempt to transfer the worker to the payroll company was NOT effective, – and there may be a number of reasons why it will not be effective – then you would clearly remain the labour hire provider. You will need a licence – even though the payroll provider is paying the worker.

The interactions between payroll arrangements and the coverage and avoidance provisions of the labour hire licensing legislation are complex and are affected by nuances in definitions, exclusions and extensions. That will mean that payroll providers (and labour hire providers) will need to exercise special care to understand the effects of a transfer of payroll responsibility from a labour hire provider. They will need to be thoroughly familiar with the legislation and will need to scrutinize the terms and conditions upon which the transfer of payroll responsibility takes place.

But wait! There’s more…

So far, we’ve only been discussing the situation where a labour hire provider appoints a payroll provider. There’s also the possibility that the payroll provider might be appointed by the client (host) or even by the worker. There’s the additional possibility that the payroll provider is, in fact, the worker’s own incorporated entity. That’s a whole other story!

Teacher 3

 

 

Andrew C. Wood

 

[i] [2015] FCAFC 37 per North and Bromberg JJ at [paras 215 to 218].

This is an opinion piece intended to promote public discussion. It is not, and should not be relied on as legal advice. If you do want legal advice, please seek it from a lawyer, who is familiar your industry and with the laws that apply in the jurisdictions where you carry on business. Your industry associations or local Law Societies may be able to help you to find professional legal advisors, who can assist you.

 

Victoria Introduces its Labour Hire Licensing Bill 2017…and cracks are starting to show.

Victoria’s Labour Hire Licensing Bill 2017, introduced into State Parliament on 13 December, is the third labour hire licensing scheme introduced this year as part of a labor State push to establish a common pattern of labour hire licensing regulation.

South Australia’s Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 is set to commence on 1 March 2018.

Queensland’s Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 is set to commence on 16 April 2018.

Victoria’s Labour Hire Licensing Bill 2017, if it is passed, has a proposed commencement date of no later than 1 November 2019, but may be proclaimed earlier.

Despite hopes of establishing a common scheme, cracks are starting to show.

Some of the cracks may be smoothed over by regulations that have yet to be released for comment in South Australia and Queensland. Others may be smoothed over by administrative fiat in those States that are intending to create an administrative power to grant various exemptions (S.A. and Vic).

Some cracks may be smoothed over by accommodating mutual recognition arrangements; and some might only be smoothed over by legislative amendment.

Furthermore, detailed analysis of the legislative schemes reveals some glaring gaps – e.g. the failure to regulate substitutable workforce contracting services; and some apparent inconsistencies – e.g. the inconsistency created by regulating only the supply of a worker where the work is done in and as part of the host/client’s business whilst simultaneously extending the definition of worker to include independent contractors. The issue, here, is that genuine independent contractors perform their work in and as part of their own businesses.

Many of these issues will only come to light when the legislation is tested in the course of prosecutions and licence decision reviews and appeals. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to to take note of them – especially for businesses that operate across state borders or may be relying on interstate advice – and bring them into the  field of public and industry dialogue.

A good place to start might be a side-by-side comparison of the main coverage provisions of the three state schemes – as far as we know them at this stage, without the benefit of regulations and with the Victorian Bill still awaiting its second reading debate.

So, I’ve had a go at representing some similarities and differences in table format. To do it, I’ve had to standardise some of the terminology. I’ve opted for:

Provider = the person who needs the licence;

Worker = the person who performs the work;

User = a person who takes the benefit of the supply of a worker for the performance of work.

The “user” terminology was the most difficult to arrive at. In the Queensland and South Australian Acts, this party is usually referred to as “another person”. Victoria uses the expression “host”. Both of those terms are problematic in their application to labour contracting chains, where several layers or tiers of supply are involved; and the nature of the services being supplied up the chain may switch between labour hire services and sub-contracting services before reaching the point where the work is actually performed.

I’ve therefore opted for the “user” terminology because it applies to labour contracting chains operating through intermediate users to an end user. However, to my mind, the term remains problematic because of the possibility of confusion with user models of gang-mastery that are regulated under the UK Gangmasters Licensing Act but have so far escaped attention in Australia.

Using my standardised terminology, one could say that common to all Australian schemes is the proposition that:

A person is a labour hire provider (provider) if, in the course of conducting a business, the person supplies a worker to another person (user) to do work…

At that point, the schemes begin to diverge around details of:

  • situational application – e.g.whether in and as part of the user’s business;
  • additional coverage;
  • exclusions; and
  • worker definition.

The table represents my attempt to illustrate these points of departure. To read it click  here or on the link below.

https://recruiterscasebook.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/qld_sa_vic-comp_cov.pdf

The expression, “c.f.”, where it is used in the table, indicates that a comparable outcome is achieved by slightly different means.

I’d love to learn of your thoughts and comments.

Businessman & Newspaper

 

 

Andrew C. Wood

Victoria’s Labour Hire Licensing Proposal: Any hope of an even playing field? Not much.

Victoria is the next cab off the rank with labour hire licensing. And there’s not much time to get submissions in before 6 December. Much of what is described in the consultation paper follows the now familiar pattern in Queensland and South Australia.

It is clear that Victoria is giving a bit more thought to what the exceptions might be and is seeking submissions about them. That’s an encouraging sign. But, it might be difficult to say much about the exceptions until the government reveals a working draft of its primary coverage provision.

It will be worth watching closely to see if Victoria can develop a definition of “labour hire provider” that comes to grips with the question asked in Queensland and still not answered:

“What is there to stop an unscrupulous labour hire supplier from simply re-inventing itself as an unscrupulous labour contractor?”

Judging from the consultation paper, it looks like Victoria is aiming to regulate supply forms of gangmastering/ labour hire and may ignore the substitutable use forms of gangmastering, which are common in cleaning, horticulture, trolley collection and other sectors at risk of the type of exploitation that licensing schemes are intended to prevent.

Let me explain.

The labour hire licensing schemes proposed for Queensland and South Australia prevent (for example) a farmer from dealing with a labour hire provider that employs a worker, whom it sends to the farm to work on the farm in the farm business, unless the labour hire provider has a licence.

To make this clearer, South Australia has recently introduced the following example as an amendment to the coverage provision in its Bill in order to explain what it has in mind:

Guy runs a plumbing business and has an employment contract with Tracey under which Tracey is paid to come to work each day at the plumbing business and be assigned work. Corey runs a grape growing business at which there is a problem with the plumbing. Corey enters into a contract with Guy to diagnose and fix the problem at the business and so Guy sends Tracey to Corey’s grape growing business to do the work. Guy does not provide labour hire services in sending Tracey to do work at Corey’s business.

We can all see that. But you can also see that that approach would  exclude:

Guy runs a grape harvesting business and has an employment contract with Tracey under which Tracey is paid to come to work each day to pick grapes at farms where Guy is providing harvest services. Corey runs a grape growing business at which there are grapes ready for harvesting. Corey enters into a contract with Guy to harvest the grapes and so Guy sends Tracey to Corey’s grape growing business to do the work. Guy does not provide labour hire services in sending Tracey to do work at Corey’s business.

That exclusion is significant if we are talking about a licensing scheme that is designed to prevent exploitation and even up the playing field.

It’s significant because licensing schemes that are imposed solely on supply models don’t prevent labour providers from assembling gangs of workers, housing them in squalid conditions, charging them outrageously for food, transport and accommodation, working them without breaks under a contracted overseer, outsourcing payroll to an associated entity and taking deductions from their pay – if, instead of supplying the worker to the farmer to work in the farm business, the provider merely undertakes to harvest the farmer’s crop using the workers in its own business, whilst buffering the whole arrangement through a chain of sub-contracts and outsourcing arrangements that reduce transparency and accountability.

That’s because the labour provider hasn’t supplied a worker; it has simply used a worker. And it seems that this may not amount to an avoidance measure, because the use form of gangmastering is not covered by the labour hire provider definitions that have been put up so far.

Again, to help illustrate the gaps, let’s see if we can highlight some of the essential pieces of the UK Gangmasters scheme that are missing from the Queensland and South Australian proposals (as we’ve been doing for some months) and now seem likely to be missing from this new Victorian proposal.

GLA s. 4(4)  – A person acts as a gangmaster if he uses a worker to do work to which this Act applies in connection with services provided by him to another person.

 

GLA s.4(5) – A person (“A”) acts as a gangmaster if he uses a worker to do any of the following work to which this Act applies for the purposes of a business carried on by him

(a)        harvesting or otherwise gathering agricultural produce following

(i)   a sale, assignment or lease of produce to A, or

(ii)  the making of any other agreement with A,

where the sale, assignment, lease or other agreement was entered into for the purpose of enabling the harvesting or gathering to take place;

(b)        gathering shellfish;

(c)         processing or packaging agricultural produce harvested or gathered as mentioned in paragraph (a).

 

As you can see, they’re not talking here about supply (there’s another sub-section for that).  And there’s a very good reason for it. It’s because the gangmasters, who assemble and run harvest gangs do not supply workers to farmers. They use them themselves and their use of those workers is just as prone to exploit  workers’ vulnerability as any other labour provider model.

In Australia, the three attempts at labour hire licensing that we’ve seen to date have become caught up in the rhetoric about “labour hire” and appear to have been limited by text book understandings of labour hire that have not kept pace with developments in the workforce services market.

They continue to talk about the tripartite supply model of labour provision as though it were the only model worth talking about. Whilst they imagine that there may be other models, they seem unable to clearly distinguish between them; or find  markers that might give meaning to those distinctions.

They seem to have lost sight of the type exploitation that they are trying to prevent and the distribution of that exploitation across different and largely substitutable service models. There seems to have been a critical failure to come to terms with the composition and structure of the workforce services market in this country.

The schemes have been blinkered by  attempts to create a model that covers all industry sectors – including those in which there has been no evidence of egregious exploitation that would warrant the imposition of a restrictive licensing scheme.

In doing so, they have lost the ability to create clear markers between labour contracting that needs to be regulated to even up the playing field and other forms of contracting that do not.

To cover the defect created by their lack of sophistication, they  simply double down on the tripartite supply model.

So, they end up being too wide and untargeted, whilst simultaneously leaving huge gaps, or blind spots, where the risk of exploitation remains uncontrolled or ignored.

It needs to be stated plainly. You don’t create an even playing field for labour hire providers in the workforce services market by imposing on them a restrictive licensing scheme that fails to regulate the supply of substitutable workforce services operating in the same market.

That’s why the UK gangmaster licensing scheme covers both supply and use forms of gangmastering. It’s also why an industry sector specific scheme makes a lot more sense… that is if you’re really trying to target sectors at the greatest risk of exploitation.

Queensland rushed its legislation through parliament ahead of the election and missed the opportunity to address its shortcomings.  In South Australia, the penny is starting to drop, but still has a long way to fall. Victoria has a chance to get it right, but hasn’t given itself much time to do so, with submissions on exceptions due by 6 December and no sight of the draft legislation yet.

Let’s see how this one goes from here. We shouldn’t have to wait too long!

 

Andrew C. Wood

Uber drivers confirmed as “employees” by UK Employment Appeal Tribunal.

silhouette-of-scaleOn 10th November 2017, the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal delivered its judgment in Uber & Ors v Aslam & Ors [PDF].   The decision will be of interest to agencies and workers operating in the “Gig economy. Here is a brief summary.

Background

Members of the Uber Group had appealed from an earlier decision of the Employment Tribunal, which found that Uber drivers in London were “workers” within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998; and that any Uber driver who had the Uber app switched on, was within the territory in which they were authorised to work (London) and was able and willing to accept assignments was working for Uber London Ltd.

Appeal

A key ground in Uber’s appeal was that the Employment Tribunal had mischaracterised the true relationship between Uber and its drivers – that rather than being one of employment, it was one of agency in accordance with which Uber provided booking services as agent for its drivers.

Uber pointed to provisions in its suite of contracts and terms of businesss, which it contended supported its view.

Outcome

The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed and dismissed Uber’s appeal. At the time of writing it is understood that Uber intends to take a further appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

Take-away points

In the meantime, there are a few quick points that can be made about the EAT decision.

  1. It is the reality of the situation that matters. The Appeal Tribunal said:

[The Employment Tribunal] was entitled to disregard the terms in the written agreements and the labels used therein.

…the true agreement between the parties was not one in which [Uber London Ltd] acted as the drivers’ agent.

  1. Control still matters. The Appeal Tribunal said:

 The [Employment Tribunal]…was entitled to look at all factors to determine whether this was a case in which the … Uber drivers were entering into contracts with passengers as part of their own business undertakings. Seeing that they were subjected to control on the part of [Uber London Ltd] was an indication that they were not.

  1. These matters will continue to be decided on a case by case basis. The Appeal Tribunal said:

Inevitably the assessment [the ET] had carried out was fact-and context-specific.

Moving forward

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court makes of this.

Whilst, it would seem possible, in theory, to construct an agency relationship of the type which Uber contended for in this case, one might wonder whether Uber would have done better to construct the agency and booking service between it and the riders, rather than between Uber and the drivers.

It could also be important to recognise that this might not really be a case, where the Employment Appeal Tribunal said that the written documentation doesn’t matter … it’s perhaps more a case of making sure that the written documentation gets it right – i.e. that it reflects the true relationship between the parties.

 

Andrew C. Wood