Workplace Law AssignmentIssue:The legal issue is if XYZ Pty Ltd Can be held responsible for the injuries suffered by Lewis. Lewis a truck driver who drives XYZ truck has been injured at the depot where he attends every day, Monday to Friday, to pick goods for delivery since 2001 after the advertisement they had placed for drivers. The question arises as to if it can be established that XYZ Ltd is liable under the law of Fair Work for the injuries suffered by Lewis. For this reason, it requires being seen if XYZ Ltd had entered into the contract with Lewis either as an employee or as an independent contractor.
This case relates to the benefits and privileges that pertain to an employee that an independent contractor cannot enjoy. Rule:To come to the decision of the liability of XYZ Ltd towards Lewis, first it requires establishing if the company has an obligation towards the safety of Lewis and if it exists it requires establishing if that the company has breached such duty (Winter, 2015). In this regard, the Fair Work Act requires the injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the due course of the business to be compensated by the defendant. Actions in favor of the ‘sham contracts’ provisions under the Fair Work Act involves all knowing or reckless behaviors that result in denial of workers employment benefits and protection (Champ, 2015).
These provisions are contained in the General protections provision of the Fair Work Act as applied to proceedings against such behaviors, for instance the Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Holdings Pty Ltd, the high court made it ruling (Barnes & Lafferty, 2010) in accordance to: Section 357- Relates to misrepresenting employment as independent contracting arrangement:1) A person (the employer) that employs, or proposes to employ, an individual must not represent to the individual that the contract of employment under which the individual is, or would be, employed by the employer is a contract for services under which the individual performs, or would perform, work as an independent contractor.
2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the employer proves that, when the representation was made, the employer:a) Did not know and) Was not reckless as to weather The contract was a contract of employment rather than a contract for services.Section 358- relates to dismissing to engage as the independent contractor.