Case: Ms Joanna Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 2669
Decision Date: 2 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission
It’s easy to assume that contracting workers overseas under the label “independent contractor” provides flexibility without employment law consequences. However, the Fair Work Commission’s decision in Pascua v Doessel Group shows that courts and tribunals look beyond labels to the actual substance of the relationship. And that scrutiny can be costly for employers who get it wrong
What Happened?
Ms Joanna Pascua, based in the Philippines, performed legal assistant and paralegal work for MyCRA Lawyers (the trading name of Legal Practice Holdings Group Pty Ltd), via a contract with Doessel Group Pty Ltd. Though she was titled an “independent contractor,” Pascua worked regular full-time hours, used a company email and phone system, followed daily instructions, and was subject to strict supervision—initially by a solicitor, and later by the firm’s principal, Mr. Doessel himself.
In Ms Joanna Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was asked to determine a threshold legal question: Was Ms Pascua truly an independent contractor as her contract described, or was she in fact an employee, entitled to the protections of Australia’s unfair dismissal regime?
This jurisdictional dispute arose after Ms Joanna Pascua, a Philippines-based legal assistant, filed an unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). She claimed she was unjustly terminated by Doessel Group Pty Ltd, a Queensland-based company associated with MyCRA Lawyers, which offers credit repair legal services across Australia. The crux of the dispute wasn’t about how the employment ended—it was about whether there was employment at all.
Pascua had worked remotely from her home in the Philippines, performing paralegal and investigation work for MyCRA Lawyers. Each day, she received file assignments via email,
communicated with Australian clients and financial institutions, and used company systems like a virtual phone and internal email bearing the firm’s branding. Her communication signature identified her as a paralegal at MyCRA Lawyers, and she was trained and supervised by a solicitor in the firm, later reporting directly to the principal, Mr Doessel.
She was paid a fixed hourly rate—$18 AUD an hour—with a cap of 40 hours per week, invoicing through a system provided by Doessel Group. Over time, she took on more responsibilities, including training others. However, in the final seven months, she became the sole staffer handling investigation work, describing the experience as highly demanding and emotionally stressful.
The relationship broke down in March 2024 when Mr Doessel accused her of breaching the contract by allegedly copying confidential company data to her personal drive. Ms Pascua denied the allegation and expressed concern that remote access software installed on her computer by the company might have allowed unauthorized activity. Without further inquiry, she was locked out of her system and terminated. In response, she lodged her unfair dismissal claim. The company objected on jurisdictional grounds, claiming Pascua was an independent contractor, not an employee. That distinction would determine whether she had any rights under the Fair Work Act. They also pointed to the fact that she lived overseas as a further challenge to jurisdiction.
The employer argued that Pascua was not an employee, and therefore not entitled to unfair dismissal protection under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). But Deputy President Booth disagreed, finding the nature of the relationship was, in substance, that of employment.
Key Findings:
• Control and Supervision: Pascua worked under daily instruction, using systems and processes dictated by the employer. She did not control how or when the work was performed.
• Integration into Business: She represented herself as a paralegal of MyCRA Lawyers, communicated with clients and banks, and was even tasked with training others.
• Remuneration: She was paid an hourly rate ($18/hour), capped at 40 hours a week, with no opportunity for profit beyond her labour—classic hallmarks of employment rather than a genuine business.
• No Right to Delegate: She had to personally perform the work—another pointer towards an employment relationship.
• Misleading Contractual Labels: Though the contract called her an independent contractor and excluded entitlements such as annual leave or superannuation, the Commission found those labels were not determinative. Echoing prior authorities (Deliveroo v Franco, ACE Insurance v Trifunovski), it ruled that what matters is how the relationship functions in practice.
• Remote Work ≠ Outside Jurisdiction: The fact that Pascua was based in the Philippines did not exempt Doessel Group from the Fair Work Act. As a constitutional corporation employing someone in its business, the employer fell within the national system.
Why it Matters for Employers
This case is a clear reminder that:
1. Titles don’t protect you. Calling someone an “independent contractor” doesn’t make it legally true. The Fair Work Commission will examine the practical nature of the relationship, not just contractual wording.
2. Control equals employment. If you’re controlling how, when, and where the work is done, you’re likely creating an employment relationship—especially if the worker can’t delegate the tasks or turn a profit.
3. Remote workers may still be employees. Even if a worker is overseas, you may still owe them rights under Australian law, particularly if your business is a constitutional corporation and they perform work as part of your ongoing operations.
4. Unfair dismissal laws can apply. If a worker you consider a contractor is found to be an employee, you could face claims for unfair dismissal, wage underpayment, leave entitlements, and more—often dating back months or years.
Key Takeaways for Employers
• Audit your contractor arrangements regularly—especially where workers are integrated into your business, perform core functions, and work under direction.
• Use caution with offshore staff. Remote status doesn’t shield you from Australian law if the worker is functionally an employee.
• Avoid one-size-fits-all contracts. Contracts must reflect the real working relationship. Generic “contractor” templates may backfire.
• Train your managers. Those engaging or supervising remote workers must understand the implications of their instructions, behaviours, and documentation.
Final Thought
The line between employee and contractor is increasingly blurred in a globalised work environment. But one thing is clear: you cannot overlook the relationships as they begin and evolve. If they fall slightly into an employee, think about the implications if they are successful, annual leave, sick leave, and other entitlements, plus a penalty to you as an employer.
ABOUT KARENA NICHOLLS:
Karena is a Partner at Coutts and is the Head of our Injury Compensation (with extensive knowledge in personal injury) and Employment Law teams. She is passionate and dedicated to helping her clients understand their rights and obligations and advising them on the best course of action to achieve their desired outcomes. It is her practical and client-oriented approach that has contributed to her authentic reputation positioning her as a highly regarded compensation and employment lawyer.
For further information please don’t hesitate to contact:
