At the end of May 2021, the AAT decided that a music teacher engaged by a music school was an ’employee’ (within the ordinary meaning of that word) and not an independent contractor for superannuation guarantee purposes.
See below for further details.
Olias carried on business as a music school. From 1 July 2014 to 30 September 2017, it engaged the services of Mr R to provide private guitar and singing lessons. The contract between Olias and Mr R was largely based on verbal agreements and conduct.
Mr R was paid a non-negotiable half hourly rate in accordance with the number of lessons he taught. He provided lessons when scheduled to the students provided to him, for the specified lesson duration at the specified location. He was provided with a uniform shirt.
The issue was whether Mr R was an employee, within the ordinary meaning of that term, for super guarantee purposes. The AAT said he was. The principal factors indicating an employment relationship were:
- control – Olias had a degree of control over Mr R in relation to the duration and location of lessons, the fees paid for lessons and the uniform to be worn;
- integration – it was clear that Mr R was providing services on behalf of the music school and not on his own behalf;
- delegation – the evidence pointed to a relationship whereby Mr R was required to deliver the lessons himself and could not delegate his work; and
- risk – Mr R did not guarantee his work and was not responsible for any mistakes, and thus the commercial risk lay more fairly with Olias.
(Olias Pty Ltd as trustee for the Storer Family Trust v CofT [2021] AATA 1524, AAT, Mitchell M, 28 May 2021.)
[LTN 105, 3/6/21]