Johnson v Armer Farms (N.I.) Ltd was about Julianne and Max Johnson (the Johnsons) who said they were employees of Armer Farms (N.I.) Limited (AFL). AFL argued the Johnsons were contractors, not employees, and therefore the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) didn't have the power to deal with their case.

The Authority had to figure out the 'real nature' of the relationship between them. This meant looking at all sorts of things, like what the parties intended, how much control AFL had over the Johnsons, how involved the Johnsons were in AFL's business, and whether the Johnsons were basically working for themselves.

The Authority found that the Johnsons weren't employees of AFL. This was because of a few things, including a written contract that clearly said it was a contractor relationship, the Johnsons' own investment in and running of their business, and that AFL didn't really control what they did day-to-day.

Key Principles Used

• Section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000: This section says what an "employee" is and sets out the test for working out if someone is an employee or a contractor. The Authority really went through this test carefully, looking at everything and not just what the parties called themselves.
• Real Nature of the Relationship: The Authority stressed that it's important to look past the formal agreement and see how things actually worked in real life. This meant checking things like control, integration, and whether the Johnsons were working for themselves.
• Intention of the Parties: What the parties wanted is important, but it's not the only thing that matters. The Authority looked at the written contract and what the parties said, but also how they actually worked together.
• Control: The Authority checked how much control AFL had over the Johnsons' work. It found that what AFL did was mostly allowed under the contract and didn't point to an employment relationship.
• Integration: The Authority looked at how much the Johnsons were part of AFL's operations. It found that while the Johnsons' work helped AFL, they weren't really a core part of AFL's business.
• Working on Own Account: This was a biggie. The Authority found that the Johnsons were basically working for themselves, having put money into their business and run it on their own.

Thoughts for contact milkers

This case shows how tricky it can be to work out if someone is an employee. Even when there's a written agreement, the Authority will really dig into how things work in practice. The decision shows how important things like control, integration, and working for yourself are. It reminds us that just calling something a certain way doesn't make it true, and the real nature of the relationship depends on lots of things.

‍