We MUST ban the sham work contracts that shame our country
NUMEROUS countries have enacted legislation to clarify the difference between an ‘employee’ and an ‘independent contractor’, regardless of what the parties might call the worker. Worldwide, court challenges have been ongoing for decades; the UK is dragging its feet on the issue. More than 20 years ago, courier companies and others put forward arguments in New Zealand identical to those currently being espoused here by the likes of cab-hailing app firm Uber. They lost. As a result, the Auckland government enacted the Employment Relations Act 2000 and came down hard on what it termed ‘sham contracting’. This Act defines the meaning of an ‘employee’ or ‘independent contractor’, using four tests to determine the real nature of the working relationship. These are the Intention Test, the Control vs Independence Test, the Integration Test, and the Fundamental/ Economic Reality Test. The Act states: ‘A sham contracting arrangement happens if an employer deliberately attempts to disguise an employment relationship as an independent contractor to avoid the worker’s entitlements — and the employer’s tax obligations.’ One of the main tests is whether ‘the work performed by the person is fundamental to the business . . . and is for the benefit of the business rather than the worker . . . whereas the work performed by a contractor is only a supplementary part of the business’. Clearly, to any reasonable person, the work carried out for couriers, distribution warehouses, taxi companies etc, can only be considered ‘employment’. These UK companies insult the commonly held understanding of an employee, and it’s high time the UK Government enacted similar legislation to bring an end to these indefensible arrangements.
RAY BANHAM, Crowborough, E. Sussex.