An interpretation of the statutory term worker: a reply to Geare

Abstract

Under notnaal circumstances, I would have allowed Geare (1991) to indulge himself in the erroneous view that the interpretation of the tetna "worker" in the Labour Relations Act 1987 is confined to the common law "employee". lt is necessary however, to come out to defend my original thesis (Adzoxomu, 1990) that the tetna need not be so narrowly construed. Geare seeks to demonstrate, without the relevant historical or policy considerations, and more importantly, without the relevant canons of statutory construction, that his counter thesis is "in fact clearly superior" to mine (p.193). It is clear from the Geare's comment that he considers modern New Zealand industrial legislation to have preserved the master and servant relationship. The purpose of this reply is to reassert my original thesis that the definition of "worker" in the Labour Relations Act is liberal enough to cover an independent contractor and to demonstrate that the counter thesis of Geare is too conservative to meet the requirements of modern industrial relations. I shall achieve this purpose by addressing Geare's counter thesis under his own subheadings.