having regard to all of the background circumstances, the appellant was employed by the respondent as a Survey Party Leader, and the terms and conditions of his employment were as set out in exhibit 4. It was also not in dispute that the process by which a person becomes a licensed surveyor is prescribed by the (WA) and the Licensed Surveyors Act 1909 Licensed Surveyors (Licensing (WA). This statutory scheme requires a person intending and Registration) Regulations 1990 to embark on a course of becoming a licensed surveyor, to enter into a separate contract of training with a qualified surveyor. In this case, the appellant entered into a “Professional Training with Mr Jonath, a licensed surveyor employed at the time by the Agreement” respondent. A copy of this Agreement was exhibit 3 at first instance. The agreement set out the training program to be undertaken by the appellant under the supervision of Mr Jonath. The appellant was described in the Agreement as a and Mr Jonath was “Graduate Surveyor” described as the The training was to be conducted in accordance with “Supervising Surveyor”. the requirements of The Land Surveyors Licensing Board Guidelines for Supervising Surveyors. Notably in cl 6 The Graduate the appellant set out his – Surveyor’s Competencies, knowledge, experience and qualifications, which included at (1) (and presumably current) his position as Party “Survey Leader”. It is plain that the Agreement was entirely separate to the contract of employment between the applicant and respondent. It was entered into by different parties. The respondent was not a party to it. It was entered into under the specific statutory scheme for the training and licensing of graduate surveyors, to enable them to become to the profession of licensed “admitted” surveyors. I do not consider from the evidence at first instance that the appellant was employed by the respondent as an or as a His position for which “Articled Surveyor” “Articled Position”. he was paid his salary was that of Survey Party Leader. The appellant, in conjunction with his employment, also was subject to the Agreement, by which he would be provided the training to enable him to satisfy the statutory requirements to be registered by the Board as a licensed surveyor. The employment contract and the Agreement were separate and one did not depend on the other for the operation of each. The learned in this respect Commissioner’s conclusions were not in error and I agree with them.
having regard to all of the background circumstances, the appellant was employed by the respondent as a Survey Party Leader, and the terms and conditions of his employment were as set out in exhibit 4. It was also not in dispute that the process by which a person becomes a licensed surveyor is prescribed by the Licensed Surveyors Act 1909 (WA) and the Licensed Surveyors (Licensing and Registration) Regulations 1990 (WA). This statutory scheme requires a person intending to embark on a course of becoming a licensed surveyor, to enter into a separate contract of training with a qualified surveyor. In this case, the appellant entered into a “Professional Training Agreement” with Mr Jonath, a licensed surveyor employed at the time by the respondent. A copy of this Agreement was exhibit 3 at first instance. The agreement set out the training program to be undertaken by the appellant under the supervision of Mr Jonath. The appellant was described in the Agreement as a “Graduate Surveyor” and Mr Jonath was described as the “Supervising Surveyor”. The training was to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of The Land Surveyors Licensing Board Guidelines for Supervising Surveyors. Notably in cl 6 – The Graduate Surveyor’s Competencies, the appellant set out his knowledge, experience and qualifications, which included at (1) (and presumably current) his position as “Survey Party Leader”. It is plain that the Agreement was entirely separate to the contract of employment between the applicant and respondent. It was entered into by different parties. The respondent was not a party to it. It was entered into under the specific statutory scheme for the training and licensing of graduate surveyors, to enable them to become “admitted” to the profession of licensed surveyors. I do not consider from the evidence at first instance that the appellant was employed by the respondent as an “Articled Surveyor” or as a “Articled Position”. His position for which he was paid his salary was that of Survey Party Leader. The appellant, in conjunction with his employment, also was subject to the Agreement, by which he would be provided the training to enable him to satisfy the statutory requirements to be registered by the Board as a licensed surveyor. The employment contract and the Agreement were separate and one did not depend on the other for the operation of each. The learned Commissioner’s conclusions in this respect were not in error and I agree with them.
FBA-10-2016-201700301.DOCX