Question

Mason was employed by One Direction in the cellar door.   One Direction have dismissed him as they no longer need him given the home delivery is accounting for a lot of their business.   After his dismissal by One Direction, he went to work for a rival wine company BTS about 1 km up the road.  Mason’s contract with One Direction stated  

‘within three years after the termination of his engagement and services with the company you will not be in the employment of any firm carrying on or engaged in the same or similar business within 50 km of One Direction cellar door”

Describe the relevant legal test and discuss whether the restraint is enforceable?

You must include at least one legal case in your answer.

Answer 1

As indicated in the Fair Work Act 2009, a contract of employment is an agreement between an employer and an employee that sets out the terms and conditions for such employment within the employer’s firm, wherein such a contract can be in writing or verbal. According to the Independent Contractors Act 2006, a services contracts pertains to a contract for service (5,1) which the independent contractor is a party that relates to the performance of work by the independent contractor and has the requisite constitutional connection where one party is incorporated in a territory in Australia

Because Mary and Watson both own the independent, grape picking business of Sherlock Vines and are offering their grape-picking services to One Direction at a price per tonne, as well as both parties registered in Australia, these criteria present a contractual agreement in place between One Direction and Sherlock Vine, given the fact that Watson and Mary own the trucks for the grape-picking business while One Direction pays for the registration and petrol. One Direction is the client, who has requested service in exchange for payment, and Sherlock Vines is the contractor, who delivers such services in exchange for payment and the added financial aid for logistic support through petrol and registration of their service trucks.

However, it is not rightful for One Direction to impose its uniforms to be worn by Watson and Mary since they are not employees of One Direction. As indicated in the Independent Contractors Act 2006, one party cannot confer or impose rights, entitlements, obligations, or liabilities on a party to a services contract in relation to matters that, in an employment relationship, would be workplace relations matters. Particularly, workplace relations matter involves imposing Mary and Watson to wear One Direction uniforms.

Moreover, One Direction’s financial support for Sherlock Vines’ safety training is justified under the Independent Contractors Act 2006 as valid under the contractual agreement as it is not a workplace relations matter, under occupational health and safety.Zayn, representing One Direction, has no right to yell at Watson and Mary since they are not required by the rules of law in the first place, to wear One Direction uniforms. His discontent over the quality of grapes is understandable as the contract indicates that Sherlock Vines could only pick a certain variant of grapes. The best course of action would be to terminate the contract between both parties if One Direction is unhappy. Mary’s accident which took place within the confines of One Direction’s vineyard should be compensated and taken care of by Sherlock Vines, due to the nature of the agreement between both parties. Mary’s inability to work for two months should be addressed by Sherlock Vines either through hiring another employee to replace Mary or conduct a Reform opt-in agreement indicated by the Independent Contractors Act 2006, defined as an agreement in writing conducted when parties no longer want the State.