Employee Liability: A Case Study

In order to determine employment status of individuals, the court has created various tests to decide on the status. Different tests has its own strength and weakness in checking the employment status and it is vital that we do not see the tests as conflict to each other but developments in the law (Ahmad Masum 2013). Control Test

Also known as the ‘Traditional Test’, the Malaysian Court adapted control test from the common law as its earliest test to determine whether a worker is an employee (LawTeacher 2017). It is also generally favoured by Malaysian Courts (Norchaya 2010). Control test focuses on the level an employer has in managing and controlling his employees over how work should be done. Employees would be deemed self-employed if this control cease to exist (Miller n.d.). According to Bata Shoe Company (Malaya) Ltd v EPF Board (1967), the managers are deemed employees of the company as Bata shows substantial control over them.

Problems arose because initially, blue-collar employees were separated from professional employees using this test. However, as time goes by, it has become difficult for employers to exercise great amount of

It was established by Cooke J. In the case of Market Investigations v Minister of Social Security ((1969) 2 QB 173) whether the individual relies on the business to which service is provided for income or the individual is in business for himself. In the case where financial risks, the profit or loss and accountability for costs puts individuals in a state of responsibility, then he is considered employer (NACUBO Business Officer 1992). If these elements do not exist, then the individual is deemed an employee. The extent to which the individual uses the property of the employer such as classroom, learning resource materials, tools, etc in the course of the contract is also considered (NACUBO Business Officer