Susan Miles v University of Melbourne Summary

[2024] FWC 3027

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Susan Miles
v

University of Melbourne

(U2024/11959)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 31 OCTOBER 2024

Unfair dismissal application – application dismissed

Earlier today I dismissed an unfair dismissal application made by Susan Miles under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). First, Ms Miles was not employed by the respondent, the University of Melbourne. Ms Miles had signed an independent contractor agreement with Talent International (Vic) Pty Ltd (Talent) pursuant to which she agreed to provide services for which Talent paid her a daily fee. Talent assigned her to work at the university, which is Talent’s client. Ms Miles submitted that the university provided her with tools of work, training and access to systems, and that it controlled her daily work, and that these and many other factors meant that she satisfied the multi-factorial test and was an employee of the university. The submission is misconceived. A person cannot be the employee of another unless there is a contract of employment between them. Ms Miles had a factual relationship with the university, but not a legal one. There was no contract of any kind between them. Instead, Ms Miles had a contract with Talent. It was clearly one of principal and contractor. It is clear, and I find, that Ms Miles was not employed by the University of Melbourne. The university did not dismiss her. Further and in any event, her deployment at the university was for less than 6 months. She did not meet the minimum employment period. For these reasons the application was dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Hearing details:

2024
Melbourne (by telephone)
31 October

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Susan Miles brought a claim against the University of Melbourne for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Miles alleged that she had been dismissed by the university, despite the fact that she had not been directly employed by them. Instead, she had been engaged as an independent contractor by Talent International (Vic) Pty Ltd, which had subsequently assigned her to work for the university. Miles argued that she satisfied the multi-factorial test for determining employment status and that she should be considered an employee of the university for the purposes of her unfair dismissal claim.

The central issue before the Deputy President was whether Susan Miles was in fact an employee of the University of Melbourne, or if she was instead an independent contractor of Talent International (Vic) Pty Ltd. The court had to examine the nature of the relationship between Miles and the university, and determine if it met the criteria for an employment contract. Additionally, the court had to consider if Miles had been dismissed by the university, and if she met the minimum employment period required to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

The Deputy President found that Susan Miles was not an employee of the University of Melbourne, but rather an independent contractor of Talent International (Vic) Pty Ltd. The court determined that there was no contract of employment between Miles and the university. Instead, Miles had a contractual relationship with Talent, which assigned her to work for the university. The court rejected Miles's argument that she satisfied the multi-factorial test for determining employment status. The Deputy President also found that the university had not dismissed Miles, and that her deployment with the university was for less than six months, meaning she did not meet the minimum employment period required for an unfair dismissal claim. As a result, the Deputy President dismissed Miles's application for unfair dismissal.

In conclusion, the Deputy President dismissed Susan Miles's unfair dismissal application, finding that she was not an employee of the University of Melbourne, but rather an independent contractor of Talent International (Vic) Pty Ltd. The court held that there was no employment contract between Miles and the university, and that the university had not dismissed her. Additionally, the Deputy President found that Miles did not meet the minimum employment period required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The application was dismissed in its entirety.

Susan Miles v University of Melbourne

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established