GET ANSWERS FOR ALL ASSIGNMENTS
The legal Issue
Based on the case presented it is clear that the legal issue on board are two: one of the issue is unfair terms of service treatment that was rendered to Oleocampo by Ridgeley who on this case seems to be a large scale farmer adjacent to the Oleocampos farm. This is consider as an “unfair term” due to the following standpoint of the law: It is clear that Civil Liability Act 1936 is fully operational in this case because it shows some signs of negligence from Ridgeley. That led to heart attack of Wyatt and dismissal of some of the employees.
A term of consumer contract stipulates that the term of contract is “unfair term” if it will cause significant imbalance amid the parties in question for example in this case is Oleocampo and Julie obligations and rights under the contract.[1] This is so if the contract is not reasonable to protect the legitimate interest of the involved groups who would have advantaged from the terms of service as so given by Julie. I is noted that if the contract of terms of service is not going to bring advantages to one of the parties then it is considered that it had failed hence the legal issue “Unfair Terms”.
The other legal issue is negligence. According to the case presented it is clear that Oleocampo had already informed Julie about the level of bullying that existed in the organization amid the employers (Junior Employers). Due to the above legal issue, Marlston was not able to continue with work as he faced a complication (Heart Attack).
The last legal issue noted is the amendment of the employment contract without pronounced communication to all the employers. For this case, Oleocampo was not informed about the changes in Bullying law so does other employees. This could have been the reason for their improper conduct.
Relevant to principle of law
Similar to the case under the past Victorian law restricting unfair terms, the denial just reaches out to employee contracts.[2] A ’employee contract’ is characterized for this reason as an agreement for a supply of services or deal or gift of an enthusiasm for area “to a person whose obtaining of the merchandise, services or investment is completely or transcendently for individual, residential or family utilize or utilization.” (Section 23, over) The securing must be by a common individual (an ‘individual’) and, to focus the genuine utilization of the services gained the courts (at any rate on the off chance that they take after point of reference made under the Victorian law: Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v AAPT Limited (Civil Claims) [2006] VCAT 1493 at para 30) will take a look at the motivation behind the assertion, as opposed to the subjective aim of both of the Julie and Oleocampo, ‘discovered by reference to the terms of the understanding, which will reflect the expectation of every last one of Julie and Oleocampo to the understanding’ (para 30) and it will be sufficient if products or services are procured considerably for individual, family unit or local utilization, regardless of the possibility that not obtained singularly for that reason. (Para 27 AAPT).[3] With reference to the case, it is clear that this sample case is similar to that of Oleocampo vs Julie. The ideal information is that in both cases there has been unfair terms to the consumers and in this case is Oleocampo and Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria. The terms of service were not dear to the intended law or jurisdiction hence considered as unfair terms of service for both.
Apply of the law to the fact
For the most part, their terms must be those which reflect the will of the Julie and Oleocampo, dispassionately decided. Judges, by reason of their experience and learning, might not have the applicable skill by which to elucidate the ambiguous, elucidate the unverifiable or offer substance to the fanciful terms of an agreement or proposed contract between the Julie and Oleocampo. To do as such by reference to a foreign made standard of sensibility may fulfill the legal advisor’s longing for decency. However the law of agreement which supports the economy, does not, even today, work consistently upon a guideline of decency. It is the substance of the employment that that Julie and Oleocampo will some of the time demonstration with narrow-mindedness to the law of negligence Civil Liability Act 1936. That motivation could conceivably create decency to the next gathering. The law might honest to goodness demand trustworthiness of dealings. In any case, I uncertainty that, statute or unique cases separated, it does or ought to uphold a service of decency upon the large number of monetary exchanges administered by the law of agreement.[4] For this case it is evident that right of control was not there and so Lau was not able to guide through his mandate to ensure that the Oleocampo was under the legal framework needed. The changes that was made in the contract should not have affected Oleocampo has he was employed prior to those changes as indicated in the case. There in can be attributed that the employer in this case is Julie was negligent in his responsibility.
On the other hand the information “The agreement included a clause suggesting he was not permitted to delegate any of his responsibilities at the tea company to another unless he got Julie’s approval” as noted in the question was not done in accordance to the law. This adds to the fact that the law calls for employers to ensure contractors should be given a chance to delegate their responsibility when times calls upon. For this reason Oleocampo could not be able to delegate is duties to another employee and due to that he worked extra hard to an extent of contracting heart attack. With reference to the law it is clear that aged individuals should also have special considerations in the workplace. In this case this did not exist between Oleocampo and Julie’s workplace.
The other fact deduces that the mode of remuneration was not just for the case of Oleocampo. It should have been stated that his payments were weekly or monthly and not that for special occasions. Due to this reasons, the court can use such as loophole to refine the cause of Oleocampos sickness in that he was not accessible to pay at the right time hence the delay in accessing medical care. Hence the heart attack that come forth.
Lastly, the level of skill involved in the labor fact was also evident. Despite the fact that Julie noted that Oleocampo had the skills needed of him, he did not take special consideration of him rather gave the employee the same specification of terms of service like other employees in the workplace.
Conclude on the facts
An independent contractor works up to expectations under an agreement for a particular occupation or period of time. For instance, Oleocampo is procured to alter a break. Dissimilar to a worker, an independent contractor for the most part doesn’t work consistently for a business, and can pick whether to make a specific showing they’re advertised. The Fair Work Act 2009 contains punishments for what it depicts as “sham courses of action” where a worker is inaccurately treated as an independent contractor.[5] In the event that your business gets benefits all the time from an independent contractor. It is vital to guarantee that your understanding of their legitimate status is right. The qualification is entangled, and you ought to acquire legitimate guidance before settling on any choices about an independent contractor. It is vital to note that the case between Julie vs. Oleocampo is an open case and both side could have a chance for a defense however, for the case Oleocampo he has much for is defense as opposed Julie. It can be concluded that Julie’s employment has violated the Fair Work Act of 2009.
[1] Act, Fair Work. “Fair Work Australia—General Manager’s report for the period 2009-2012—Enterprise agreement-making in Australia under the.” Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), dated November 2012 (2009).
[2] Chapman, Anna. “Protections in Relation to Dismissal: From the Workplace Relations Act to the Fair Work Act.” UNSWLJ 32 (2009): 746.
[3] Australia, Fair Work. “Fair Work Act 2009.” (2009).
[4] Gollan, Paul J. “Australian industrial relations reform in perspective: Beyond Work Choices and future prospects under the Fair Work Act 2009.” Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 47, no. 3 (2009): 260-269.
[5] Stewart, Andrew. Stewart’s guide to employment law. Vol. 3. Federation Press, 2008.
