This task is self-contained and asks for a legal classification analysis. No inputs/ directory was referenced, and the work order is fully specified in the PROMPT.md. I have the information I need to produce the deliverable.

This is a question about Australian employment/contractor law as decided by the High Court in 2022. The two landmark 2022 cases are *CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd* [2022] HCA 1 and *ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek* [2022] HCA 2. The fact pattern here (young labourer, "Odco"-style labour-hire arrangement, wholly written non-sham contract, labeled "self-employed contractor" but subject to control) maps directly onto *Personnel Contracting* (the "Mr McCourt" case).

Here is my answer.

Classification: employee

The High Court in *Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd* [2022] HCA 1 held that where the parties have committed the terms of their relationship to a wholly written contract that is not a sham and not varied, the characterisation of the relationship as employment or independent contracting is determined by construing the legal rights and obligations created by that contract, not by a wide-ranging review of how the parties conducted themselves over the life of the work. The "multifactorial" totality-of-the-relationship test is confined to the rights and duties the contract establishes; post-contractual conduct and the parties' own label are not the focus. The right to control how, when and where the work is done, and whether the worker is working in their own business or in the business of the engaging party, are weighed as legal rights under the contract.

Applying that to these facts, the contractual rights point firmly to employment: the company has the right to control how the labourer carries out the work, directs what work he does and when and where he does it, he cannot delegate, he supplies no significant equipment, and he carries on no business of his own (he is engaged to serve in the company's business, supplying labour to its clients). The contractual label "self-employed contractor" does not control the legal character of the relationship the contract creates. On materially identical facts, the High Court held the labourer (Mr McCourt) was an employee of the labour-hire company.

(I have set out the full response below as the file content for `response.md`.)

# LAW-0004 - Classification of a labour-hire worker

Classification: employee

## (b) The controlling approach and the leading case

The leading case is **Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1** (decided 9 February 2022; the worker was Mr McCourt). Its companion case, *ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek* [2022] HCA 2, was handed down the same day and adopts the same approach.

The controlling approach the High Court adopted is the **contract-primacy (rights-and-obligations) test**. Where the parties have comprehensively committed the terms of their relationship to a written contract that is not a sham and has not been varied or waived, whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor is determined by **construing the legal rights and obligations created by that contract** - not by a broad, open-ended review of how the parties actually behaved over the course of the engagement. The Court rejected the earlier practice of treating the "totality of the relationship" (including the parties' subsequent conduct) as the touchstone.

Within that framework:

- The established **multifactorial / indicia** analysis still operates, but it is applied to the **rights and duties the contract creates**, rather than to the day-to-day conduct of the parties. The familiar indicia (control, the right to delegate, who supplies equipment, who bears risk, mode of payment, and so on) remain relevant, but only as they are fixed by the contractual terms.
- The **central question** is whether, on the proper construction of the contract, the worker is working **in the business of the engaging party** (employee) or **in a business of their own** (independent contractor). The **contractual right of control** - the engaging party's right to direct how, when and where the work is done - remains a major, though not decisive, consideration.
- The **label the parties put on the relationship is not determinative.** A clause describing the worker as a "self-employed contractor" cannot override the legal character of the rights and obligations the rest of the contract actually creates. (The "label" can carry weight only where the other terms are genuinely ambiguous as to the nature of the relationship.)

Applying that approach to these facts, the contractual rights point firmly to employment: the company has the contractual **right to control how the labourer carries out the work**, directs what work he does and **when and where** he does it; he **cannot delegate**; he **supplies no significant equipment**; and he runs **no business of his own** - he is engaged to supply his labour within the company's labour-hire business and to serve on its clients' sites. The "self-employed contractor" description does not change that. This is materially the same situation the High Court decided in *Personnel Contracting*, where Mr McCourt - a young labourer engaged by a labour-hire company under a wholly written "Odco"-style contract that called him a contractor - was held to be an **employee** of that company.

## (c) One practical consequence for the engaging business

Because the worker is an **employee**, the engaging business carries the legal obligations and liabilities that attach to employment rather than to a contractor relationship. Any one of the following is a sufficient practical consequence:

- It must meet **statutory superannuation guarantee** contributions for the worker (and is exposed to the superannuation guarantee charge if it does not).
- It must provide **National Employment Standards / award entitlements** - paid annual leave, personal/carer's leave, notice of termination, and minimum award rates - and the worker can bring an **unfair dismissal** claim if eligible.
- It must operate **PAYG withholding** on the worker's wages and is liable for **payroll tax** and **workers' compensation** premiums on those wages.
- It bears **vicarious liability** for wrongs the worker commits in the course of the employment.

(The mirror-image risk is that, having treated the worker as a contractor, the business faces **back-payment of unpaid entitlements and superannuation, plus interest and potential penalties** for the period of misclassification.)

---

### Note on approach

The fact pattern - a young labourer, a comprehensive wholly-written non-sham contract that labels him a "self-employed contractor" yet subjects him to the company's direction and control, with no business, no equipment and no right to delegate - is a direct match for *CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd* [2022] HCA 1 (the Mr McCourt / "Odco" labour-hire case). I therefore applied the 2022 High Court approach: where the relationship is wholly captured in a valid written contract, classification turns on construing the legal **rights and obligations** the contract creates (with control and "whose business is it" central, and the parties' own label non-determinative), not on the parties' later conduct. On those contractual rights the worker is an **employee**, consistent with the actual outcome in *Personnel Contracting*. Part (c) states a standard downstream consequence of that status for the engaging business.