Clear v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland [1995] ICQ 19 (1995) 149 QGIG 1056

1056 QUEENSLAND COVERNMENT INDlJSTRlAL GAZETTt: [4 August. i 995 ####################################################### QlTENSLAND l~DlJSTRlAL CUl'RT WORKERS. CO\IPLI\S,\Tl! l:--! \CT I 'NO fnclus/rl{l/ Re/a/ions Act 199(} , l l Sl3J _ arre~I from det.:ision ol industrial mag1strat~ Brian Leslie Clear Workers· Compcnsatiun Hoard of()uct.:nsLmd (So C5 o/J9()5J 24 Jul 1 l 99:' I) . •-• ·. n r j' • 11 -1 u,t··'al \l,i,.•istratc.- l.)crlnit.iun of "'Workc..•r'" .\ppc-al 1.·ct:-.1<i ,, 1 u _ 1 i , t:· • ,mJcr lbc /1',y(cn- • Compem-nu,,n Ac/ ,_9!JO . hnplD) cd Under Contract for Service, - Supply and l 'sc nl Lqu1pmc:nt .- l.qu'.~;11rnt Supplied if required by Appellant Corrt.:ct l. ndcrs1,mdmg 0 1 • on!s r;· • ,,J ,·,y l' cl" I hnd'' -- \nr,cal Ji,;rmsscd "1th l. u:,b. 1 c::-.:~n~.\.__ 1- 1 .::. _,_ • ,. • JL DU'\110il The appciirml appeals against a dcc·isiun of an lndu~uia'. '\lanislratc al Brisbane dism,s,rng a rclcrcnce un,kr. s. llJ.\ nl tf.c ;r,,;, crs c ·umnc:nsm, 011 ,kt J990. Before 1hc It:dustnal 'vfog:stratc the Jllattcr \\~S conducted large!) nn the ha,is or agrc.cd la~b ·ilthounh ccrtam tinJi11gs of fact had tu be made as \\Cl!. . I ncri \\dS :m dis~utc that on 2:\ Octohcr l 993. the appellant was 1n_1urcd \\l!en l1;; te:i from ,cafk-lding Oil a construction site at Bcaudesc:1 1_11gh School and that as a result of his injuncs he ht.:rnmc mcarac1t,'.tcd lo~ ,,ork. The issue before the Industrial 'vlagistr,lle \\as, wncuv2 r die e1rpcllant ,,as a ··"orkcr" \\ithin t_hc meaning of tnc fl orkcr 1 Co1n;x-n1utiDn ACI f <J91/ at the time of lli', 1111nr: - . I' The ,!ppcllant had contracted \\ ith Mekrc;t C ,Jnc,trctct,ons t) - k tl , •sn1°c1 1 he 1 td (Melcn:sti to pcrfr,rm roolmg ,,or on ic ,, '· ~ • , '. '-r .1· ·tra'•• ',nn·l and it was n,1\ disputeJ in the appeal that the :"•( h ;-- ( L-... , L \._ • _ - • - • ' 1 -' • h at "ppci\ant was ernpl0yccl umkr a conl!act 1ur.sentccs: 1,1\ JO . ' llcaudcscrt I !ieh S.:hool \\clS one of a scnc, of JllOS pcrlormcc b) ,tht: appellant for ;klcrcst lt ,1as an al:(rc:cJ fact thd 1 the ,ca!foh.1ng . ~ , 11 .,·t11· .1, q•1» •inpcllant was ,,orkinu at the tm,c ot the accident LliJl, \ ~• • • " l r- • '- • \ • ' . ·1 -I 11, \·1,·lc·i·cs• ]• w11s an aorccd fact that all 111atcna 1nr \\ a:,, :.-,urp lt;:, ). .,· .., • ~- ~ ~. C . ' ' - tl,c Joh in question was supplied b::, Mclercst and that un '-. an_ous .. ,. . th" 1rn,ellant an1n2cd for other r-:lolcrs to wurk un tlicrob. ui.:c.J..'.l10tl'.'i -... , n- _ -- . ~~( r ! le ':lilbJ \kicrcsl for the hours worked b) tbc others at • i l pc, Imm per man und the othcr ronfers were paid. accordrng to the li,dust.rial t'>fagrstratc·s f'nding,. SI l per hour bv the appellant. 4 Auμu:-;t, 1995] QCFENSLAND GOVER:\/Mh'.'ff INDL:STRIAI, GAZETTE 1057 llw st1tus of the arpcllant with rctcrcncc to the cY1dencc rclming ln the cngaf'x'1ucni nf the ,,thcr rersoJb !w h1111. was not a rna1or i,suc before the lndustnal \1agislrnk, a, tile lndus,rial '\fagistratc conceJcJ in his decision. l !m,cvcr. the Industrial \1agistrntc did find that s 8(5) did not ,tpply because the comract "as rl\>l a cc,mnct 10r l:1bDr:r only. I le f,,und th:u the appc:11:rnt proYtdcd :he !ahnur ,,f ('tl;cr, JS ,,·ell as his u,,n. ·1 h1: Industrial \1agistratc concc(kd that this issue had not bc<:n fully litigated bcfi1re him and ,, as conscious of the need. had the issue hecn crncial to his decision. L.1 allo\\ the rani,:·'-i an l)ppu1111nity ~o a-.ldrl·~:..; sub1nl~,;;inn--; to the I !O\\l'\l'r. he felt it ar,r,ropri;nc to express his view on that issue bccd.Ui\..' i1c had in c:"lny L'Vcnt ft,nni..;d the opiniun that ti-.1c appellant ''"' m•I " ,,orkcr on 1111Pthcr b<1sis. !"hat \\as that the arpeilar.t wa, excluded from the Jclinition of ··worker.. because he .,upplied or useJ in the pcrlormancc of the contract equipment. plalll or 111ad1in:.:r: (()lh~r thu: wob Jisit=ncJ 1,,r use by hand\. !be r',,.:~!<-ic1nrnl-! \\·a~ hd'.;l.:d (1H C! findiug t1,at the conlract \\'a~ ll' the cffcl'.l diat the apr,cllant ,,as to r,roviJc c4uipment. namd:, laJdcrs. if required. In so finding. the: Industrial t'>fogistratc displayed a preference for the e,·iciencc of a \\itncss fr,1m \-1clcrcst over that of the ,irpellant l!ic !ndustrial rvLu,:islrate·s approach th<::n:i'urc was to charactcnsc the n,iturc of the contract as one m which the appellant \\as workine under a contract (1 thcr than a cnntract of' scn icc and ,,as supplying and tbir.g in the pcrforlllance (lj llK contract Clj!iipnicnt othc'r than touls dcsi~m:d li1r 11sc b, h,md !he '\1agistrntc •s dcc1s1on 1, as attacked un a mm1bcr ,,f grounds. !'he first ,,a, that the linJinμ, that the wntract for services required t,1c :.irrcllant tu suprly and use his uwn laJdcr rn pcrl,irming the 1q1:l i1 ncces,<1n· \\as \Hnn2 and crn11rary to the c1 idcnce ancfior the \\Cit:'.Lt of C\'idcn...:i: ~ubs:diar; tu ll1t.1L it \\'i.L"i al1cg1._•J t;i;1.~ lhc industrial Magistrate erred in finding that the appellant undcrstpod : 11c1l ,1t the time ,1r making the contras:! he \\ould be rc4u!lcd to ,upril and u,c hrs ,rn11 laducr ,,.necessary. It was alleged that :rnch llnding wt1~ \\TPnf in la\\ and c1galn~t the l'\ Hkncc and/or \H~i~ht of 11,,: c, idcPcc. I here \I as ~ further ).'10t1nu of apr,cal that the l ndustnal \ia;.:istr,,tc erred in lindr1w that a i,rddcr ,,c1s "\:quipmcnt. plant 0: n·!ld1incry (other ,han ttlols desigmr:I for use by h:md 1·· withm thc: 1,Jt,di1J11g ,,f ,.<J1d1(i). Ii ''"'' ,ilso alkgc:d that having found that m ifl/'11cc1inn ,,ith the r,anicular rnntrdct tlw appe:lant did not in l~1ct ;i;p 1,I:, and the a LidJcr. thtc lndu:;trn,I MagistratL had urLJ in lindi:n! that tht: appc:bnt \\JS nut a work~r anJ that Ihl: prorcr nr,,1,·uction ,,f the \\ord-; ··,,.!i,i supplies and uses i11 the: pcrlimnanc:e ul tlw ~ontract'" required proof of :1ctual use ol such an 1tc111 ot u:·111~pn1cnt in !t1t.' pcrf\)rn1~mce Df th'"' rd:1tr~1Lt. ft \i.-~r.~ aA:--u :11l·.:~:~d tL,:t the tindin~ t!11t tht.: app~!lant pn,)\ id...:c! not nnly i1i'.'- n\vrl Jabour bu1 th-: labour of his cmrl,,) ees. led tu an error in l1nding that the ;;;~,pcl:ant w,io not ""a pcr,011 ,1lrn \\Orb under a contract li,r laht1ur ,1<.1h •• It ,,as further ailcgcd that the 1indmg that the appcllanl hall -,1•.n cmplPh'es \\as 1wt ,,pen on '.h,~ evidence It was -;urrnitkd 1h,11 tile c, idcncc t,tablisht:d only that he arranged a11J orgarnsed lor ,1 1 bcr indcpcmknt contraelnrs to sur,ply their labour lo supplement Y.~n !ahllur ! he thn_1~t tit' !h(' appellant·~: tnain argurncnt \, ~b Lhat tiH.. 1,ion rc·lating Ill the supph and us 1: ol equipment in the r1·crl,1rrnancc of the um tract rcfrrred to an acllial supply and use. It :--,uh1nittc<l th:Jt it \\d~) .:rron ...'.<'>i.l>, lo apply d t.,.:s! \1-·hcU1cr u tcr:11 ol lll~ ..;/J;1tract \\'JS pnJ\·isil,n b) th~~ appellant uf? l.idJcr ·-;1 rc~uircJ" a.c,; the \h1~i:~tratc flH1nJ. :\ c,'.sc' ,:i.this k1nl highlights a .iifilcult are;, rn app! 0 rng the Act t· 1u 1r1nh..:i;, l.lic appclia11t c;:-t:--r:c:, I.lie 11 nt:s ol c:-;h:th~ishinμ tnaL ht: i~ a \lllr~cr ri1c industri,1l 1\lag1sm1tc··, rca,ornng may be l!llcrprelcd as sa1 ing that pnmo _focic une \,ould npcct that it \\Ould be ,rn implied lCdL i:1 cat:h cunir..1et ill\'t)h·in1:;1 roc,fing. \\()Tk that the t:nntractur l 55221l--81 \\Uttid pro\ ide neccs•;ar1 plant and equipment sud1 a, the means ol gcttmg onLo the roof for the purpose of pcrlonrnng the work. In t11c -ib,;ence of c1rcums1anrc, which indic<ltc thal sudi a term is nm included in the contract. either by reason of express agre;;mcm orb:, rea,onablc inference to b<.r drawn from the par(icui:Jr circumstances Dftlic \\C>rk to be performed. the proper cunclusion would be that the pc~snn i, one ,,ho 1\orb tmdcr a coniract otber than a contract ol senicc and ,,ho supplies and uses in performance of the contrac, equipmcril. plant or niadrn1cr} other than tools designed for use by band. l"h<: fact that !he appellant chose to use scaffolding alrc:id) Ill piacc was simply fortuitous. Alter 1\cighinf! the evidence the Mag1,trak found that the contract w.is one where the common understanding wa, that the cquipm<:nt \\mild f->e supplied and used if required by the appellant. ·1 he fact that up to the time of Lhs.: foll he had n,,t needed to do so diJ not affect the position In 1h,· circurnst,mcc, th,'. \-1agistratc 1,a, in lll) , icw correct in hnlding that the appellant had not discharged the onus re,ting on him ttl establish his claim. IL was also submnted that the Magi,tratc was \\T<ing in finding that a ladder was not within the dcscnpLion ol "'tool, de,iirnc.J fur use bv hauJ" In nn opinion. thc- Magistrat.c was com;ct in his linJi11g. I laving regard lu the foe! that th,'. 111am b<1,is upon \\hich 1hc Magistrale' found ar:ainst the appellrmL i, sounJ it is unncccssar) to explon: lhi: Magistrate·s obitcr remarks concerning the nature of the :ippellant"s relationship with the persons engaged by l11111 to provide L.ibclllr for which lie chargcci al a f!reat,:r rate' tha!J lhJt paid tll Lhcm. I l:e appc,11 is dismissed with costs. Dated this twenty-fourth day of July. 1995. K.C,W \,L\CK!:N/IL l'r~sicknt. \1r .L!·. \lurdoch (instructed f-> 1 W.11. l:m and ()uini,rn; lur Mr ii. ( icar. 11.lr (i.K. Srllldcn (instructed lr, the Cro1111 Solicitor) for Workers· Compensation Huard of Queensland 0,1crnti1c Date: \;/;\ Judgement - B. Cicar and Workers· Cornpcnsatron Board or Ouccnsland Released: 24 luly ! 995. ####################################################### I , 91)8 1. DOC -- 1 of 1 --