Tabone and Secretary, Department of Employment

This matter concerned an application by Mr Tabone for an advance under the *Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012* following an insolvency event at Pentridge Village. The core dispute revolved around whether Mr Tabone was an employee or an independent contractor of Pentridge Village, as this determination was crucial for establishing his eligibility for the advance. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with resolving this classification.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the true nature of the relationship between Mr Tabone and Pentridge Village, particularly whether it had evolved from an independent contractor arrangement to one of employment, despite the absence of formal changes to their contractual arrangements. This required the Tribunal to consider the substance of the relationship rather than merely the labels used by the parties.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr Tabone initially commenced his engagement as a sub-contractor, the reality of his working relationship with Pentridge Village had significantly changed over time. Evidence indicated that his role expanded, he worked full-time, reported to and took directions from a director, and performed tasks previously undertaken by various employees. The Tribunal applied the principle that the substance of a relationship, not its form or the labels applied, dictates its true character. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Tabone had become an employee by 2012, even though the formal arrangements had not been updated to reflect this change.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review, finding that Mr Tabone's relationship with Pentridge Village had morphed into one of employment.