also lends credence to the inference that what he was engaged in was a contract of work and not for service: he had not surrendered his labour or service to the first respondent and the latter neither controlled nor directed the manner in which he performed his service. On the facts found by the arbitrator, the appellant does not fit the profile of a person who deserves the protection of the 2007 Labour Act and I do not find any pressing public policy reason or concern which necessitates extending the protection afforded by that Act to a person in the circumstances of the appellant. Regardless of whether on the same facts we could have come to a different conclusion on the evidence found by the arbitrator, I am satisfied that a reasonable trier of fact could reasonably come to the conclusion that the appellant was not an employee. Conclusion The conclusion I come to is that although the appellant's ground of appeal raised an appealable question of law within the meaning of s 89(1)(a), the first respondent had rebutted the presumption that the appellant was its employee. Both the arbitrator and the Labour Court were therefore correct in declining jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s complaint. Costs Both parties agreed that this is a matter of immense public importance and that no costs order should be made regardless of the outcome of the appeal.
also lends credence to the inference that what he was engaged in was a contract of work and not for service: he had not surrendered his labour or service to the first respondent and the latter neither controlled nor directed the manner in which he performed his service. On the facts found by the arbitrator, the appellant does not fit the profile of a person who deserves the protection of the 2007 Labour Act and I do not find any pressing public policy reason or concern which necessitates extending the protection afforded by that Act to a person in the circumstances of the appellant. Regardless of whether on the same facts we could have come to a different conclusion on the evidence found by the arbitrator, I am satisfied that a reasonable trier of fact could reasonably come to the conclusion that the appellant was not an employee. Conclusion The conclusion I come to is that although the appellant's ground of appeal raised an appealable question of law within the meaning of s 89(1)(a), the first respondent had rebutted the presumption that the appellant was its employee. Both the arbitrator and the Labour Court were therefore correct in declining jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s complaint. Costs Both parties agreed that this is a matter of immense public importance and that no costs order should be made regardless of the outcome of the appeal.