Individual argues he was a 'worker' within the meaning of the Act
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) recently dealt with a case involving an individual who contended he was a worker, hence, eligible for workers’ compensation for injury.
Meanwhile, the Workers’ Compensation Regulator contended that at the time the individual entered into a contract with the company, he was not a contractor nor a worker.
Seeking workers’ compensation
Since 2014, the individual who was seeking compensation worked for the company as a courier driver and performed such a worker under a written contract between him and the company.
Around February 2021, while sorting through stacked items to locate those that he needed to deliver, certain items fell on the individual, which caused him injury on his lower back and left shoulder.
Consequently, the individual applied for workers’ compensation for his injury. Yet, he withdrew his application on the ground that he was not a “worker” within the meaning under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.
The individual requested a reopening of his application only to be rejected because he was not a “worker.” He sought a review of the decision with the Workers’ Compensation Regulator only to uphold the earlier decision. Hence, he appealed to the QIRC.
In his submission, the individual argued that he was a “worker” during the time he caught the injury because he was a contractor who made a contract with the company for the performance of work.
He further argued that his injury that occurred while carrying out a task was not incidental to the contracted work, any trade or business he was operating or operating regularly, and the business of being a courier.
Meanwhile, the regulator said that during his entry into the contract with the company, the individual was an unemployed worker who was not conducting any trade or business. Hence, it was difficult to look at how he could even maintain that he was a “contractor.”
It further argued that at the time he sustained his injury, the worker had been conducting his own business without raising any questions or concerns with the company about not being a contractor for over six years.
HRD previously reported about a worker who won a six-figure compensation in court after being fired over a work-related injury.
Commission’s decision
Ultimately, the QIRC found no evidence that the individual was a contractor at the time he made the contract with the company. Hence, he was not a worker within the meaning of the Act.
Instead, the individual was an unemployed worker who had purchased a van intending to go into business for himself in the future.
“If the business of a courier is to load parcels into a vehicle for delivery, then t he sorting of parcels, at the point of collection, as a preliminary step to locating and loading parcels to be delivered into the vehicle, is incident to the business of a courier,” the QIRC stated.
“The sorting of parcels at the point of collection so as to be able to load deliverable parcels is obviously naturally related to or connected with the business of a courier,” it added.
Hence, the Commission confirmed the earlier decision of the Workers’ Compensation Regulator and dismissed the worker’s appeal.
