Latest news with #JoannaPascua
The Advertiser
21 hours ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
When foreign 'contractors' are considered to be employees
The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac. The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac. The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac. The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Australian Business Risk of Hiring Freelancers Hits National Headlines
Remote staffing leader Cloudstaff offers free consultations to help companies avoid costly compliance mistakes when hiring offshore staff. SYDNEY, June 3, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- In light of a landmark ruling by the Fair Work Commission and growing media coverage of staffing issues, Cloudstaff, a leading provider of ethical remote staffing, has offered Australian companies relying on direct-hire offshore freelancers a free advisory consultation. As published in the ABC, the case of Ms. Joanna Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd has revealed substantial risks tied to the misclassification of offshore workers and non-compliant contractor arrangements. "Businesses that hire informal freelancers may be exposing themselves to hidden liabilities—from wage and benefit claims to data breaches and reputational damage," said Lloyd Ernst, Founder and CEO of Cloudstaff. "This isn't just about compliance. It's about doing the right thing—for your business, your investors, your customers, and the people who work for you, no matter where they are." The recent case sets a significant precedent: even offshore workers classified as contractors may legally be considered employees if they are subjected to supervision, fixed hours, or controlled pay – triggering obligations under Australian workplace law. Cloudstaff urges Australian businesses to consider the following risks: Financial Penalties: Misclassified workers may be entitled to retroactive wages, leave entitlements, and superannuation – costs that could compound quickly. HR and Legal Exposure: Direct engagement with offshore freelancers may leave companies vulnerable to employment law violations across borders. For many businesses, HR litigation can impact their reputation or ongoing investor opportunities. Data and IP Security: With freelancing, businesses are more exposed to breaches of sensitive data and intellectual property misuse. If there is an issue, international prosecution without the proper contracts and equipment ownership records can be challenging. Investor Due Diligence: With ESG, compliance, and operational risk under scrutiny, improper hiring models could jeopardize funding, M&A, or IPO readiness. Cloudstaff's offshore staffing model ensures full compliance with HR laws, manages IT equipment and security, and manages litigation as the direct employer. In addition, the Cloudstaff "#1 workplace everywhere" mantra guides culture and employee benefits for discerning businesses looking to create great workplaces with high retention everywhere they operate. "We've built Cloudstaff to remove the complexity, reduce the risk, and raise the standard for offshore work," Ernst added. "In an era where remote teams are essential, the future of work must be built on a foundation of ethical and sustainable employment." Cloudstaff is currently offering advisory sessions for Australian businesses navigating offshore hiring and compliance risks. To learn more or schedule a consultation, visit: About Cloudstaff Cloudstaff is pioneering remote staffing solutions that combine ethical outsourcing with enterprise-grade people tech. They connect businesses embarking on remarkable growth with the world's top talent from their pool of over 800,000 professionals. Brilliant careers for future teams are underpinned by unique investments in community and training, while client experiences are boosted with productivity apps, passionate support, and a vision for an AI-augmented future of work. With 21 delivery centers across the Philippines, India and Colombia, 79 work-from-home cities supported, and client operations in the US, Australia, and UK, they are helping businesses around the globe find staff for over 150 roles. Businesses looking for professional services staffing partners that are more than just an Employer of Record (EOR) or compliance service can discover why they choose Cloudstaff at View original content: SOURCE Cloudstaff Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
ABC News
02-06-2025
- Business
- ABC News
This Filipino woman struck a blow against Australian businesses 'exploiting' offshore workers
A woman in the Philippines who scored a surprise win against an Australian business in the Fair Work Commission has blazed a trail for potential legal claims — including class actions — by offshore workers, lawyers say. Joanna Pascua, who was sacked last year by a Brisbane credit repair outfit for whom she was doing paralegal work from her home in Manila, drew on her experience advocating for clients in Australia to file an unfair dismissal claim. She won the right to Australian workplace protections in a watershed case that raises questions about the burgeoning practice of businesses hiring overseas workers to sidestep local wage costs and obligations. "I've never heard of something like this, it was just really a long shot for me," Ms Pascua said. Ms Pascua said she celebrated with her family over burritos and received a flurry of congratulatory messages from other Filipinos working for companies in Australia and New Zealand. "I can say it is monumental because Australia has just established its leadership in [an international] labour workforce," she said. Ms Pascua's contract with Doessel Group, in Brisbane's north, required her to investigate credit claims and liaise with Australian banks and credit agencies on behalf of clients of a related business, My CRA Lawyers. Working from home with a phone and a computer, she was paid $18 (about 640 Philippine pesos) an hour. According to a legal filing for Ms Pascua in the Fair Work Commission, she was likely among "tens of thousands" of people hired by Australian companies as "offshore contractors" when many of them were in fact employees left without protections either in Australia or their home countries. "Ms Pascua's case demonstrates how offshore contracting exploits a grey area of the law to the short-term economic benefit of Australian businesses, such as Doessel, but to the detriment of the labourers involved," the submission said. "Offshore contractors are performing precarious and informal jobs without social protection, for the immediate commercial gain of the businesses that acquire their labour." This "grey market" is associated with small Australian businesses that, unlike large corporations, cannot afford to set up overseas subsidiaries that employ staff who are protected by industrial laws in those countries. In February last year, Doessel Group sacked Ms Pascua after accusing her of unlawfully copying company and client information to her personal drive — allegations she denied. "I couldn't believe it. This couldn't be happening. This is not real. There's no basis for it," she said. "Something in me was nagging that I was wronged, and I can't make a company listen to Philippine law because of how it was set up." Ms Pascua said her work "happily defending consumers" had shown her that "Australian law is very considerate on the actual circumstances of the consumer or the individual [and disputes] will get sorted out in a very fair way". She decided to file for unfair dismissal but had to overcome a key hurdle as a "virtual worker" living a 5,800-kilometre plane flight away. "When I first submitted my complaint, I was told that you can't file an unfair dismissal because you're not even resident in Australia," Ms Pascua said. "But it doesn't say in the [Fair Work Act that] you have to be physically in Australia. "I'm actually an employee … I do everything I'm expected to do in a daily grind, 8:30 to five o'clock Australian, Queensland time, I have to be there, have to be on time and all that." Doessel Group argued she was an "independent contractor" outside Australia's jurisdiction. But last September, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Tony Slevin found that this "belied that actual nature of the contract [and] Ms Pascua was not conducting her own business". He ruled that Ms Pascua was an employee of an Australian company, and entitled to national minimum work standards, which include a wage of at least $24.87 an hour. Doessel Group tried to appeal the ruling but it was upheld by the full bench of the commission in February. This has cleared the way for Ms Pascua to continue her unfair dismissal claim, and to pursue unpaid wages through the Fair Work Ombudsman. "Will I be contesting unfair dismissal? No, probably not," Doessel Group founder Graham Doessel told the ABC. "Don't know yet. I haven't made a commercial decision. And have I employed somebody to replace her from the Philippines? Absolutely not. "In my particular case, once bitten, twice shy." Mr Doessel said that Ms Pascua had been "paid more than a senior solicitor, more than an airline pilot" in the Philippines. Mr Doessel said the ruling would likely harm thousands of small businesses in the same boat as his, including "accountants, solicitors, brokers, finance companies". Brisbane lawyer Alex Moriarty, who took on Ms Pascua's case late last year, told the ABC it put companies "on notice that employing offshore workers is not an easy loophole for avoiding Australia's workplace protections". "Virtual and remote workers … can easily be deemed to be, in effect, Australian employees, with all the same rights under our Fair Work Act, including its minimum wage, gender pay equity, unfair dismissal and anti-bulling and anti-discrimination protections," he said. Sydney-based employment lawyer Sarah Capello said she agreed these legal claims could follow, but barriers would include access to litigation funds for what tended not to be "big money cases". "There might be a couple of instances where it does occur but I don't think it's going to be as often as we might think," Ms Capello said. "I might be wrong … but I would be really surprised if this was the case because of the reliance in the Philippines of the [remote] work coming back to Australia." Ms Pascua said remote jobs had meant new opportunities for working people in the Philippines, especially university-educated women who had raised their families and wanted to make a fresh contribution. But after her sacking, she felt a need to show her adult children that she could "practise what I preached to them growing up", including to her daughter, a law student who she hoped would one day become a judge. "Do I want them to feel that it's OK to feel this way and not do anything about it?" Ms Pascua said.
