1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Robert Santoro
v
Be Pay Australia Limited
(U2023/13237)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON BRISBANE, 3 APRIL 2024
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – jurisdictional objection – not an employee –
jurisdictional objection upheld – application dismissed
Background
[1] On 30 December 2023, Mr Robert Santoro (Applicant) made an application to the Fair
Work Commission (Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s. 394 of the Fair Work
Act 2009 (the Act). The Applicant asserts that he was unfairly dismissed by Be Pay Australia
Limited on 11 December 2023.
[2] Be Pay Australia Limited (Respondent / Be Pay) is a barter trading exchange which uses the
cryptocurrency, Barteos or BTE, as its digital currency. Be Pay solely represents Barteos in Australia
and trades as “Barteos Australia”.1 Be Pay objected to the application on the basis that it did not
employ the Applicant and no employment relationship had ever existed between the Applicant
and Be Pay. Rather, the Respondent asserts that the Applicant is one of the directors of Joinbte
Pty Ltd (Joinbte), the company which entered into the “Barteos Australia Master Agent”
agreement with Be Pay on 3 August 2022 (SDM Agreement). The SDM Agreement is dated
28 July 2022 and states it is a “contract of services”.
[3] Prior to entering the SDM Agreement, the Applicant and the other director of Joinbte,
Mr Wolfgang Hein, had entered into an agreement on similar terms to the SDM Agreement
(the previous agreement). The previous agreement was dated 17 December 2021 and also
stated that it was a “contract of services”. On 22 April 2022, an addendum to the previous
agreement was agreed to by the parties, outlining new products and setting new commission
rates.
[4] The Respondent asserts that on 11 December 2023 it exercised its right to terminate the
commercial contract between the Applicant and Be Pay due to on-going performance issues
and allegations that arrangements were being made with an organisation that was a conflict of
interest to Be Pay.2 It is not in dispute that on 11 December 2023, the Director of Be Pay, Mr
Peter Kritas, sent a letter to the Applicant and Mr Hein terminating the SDM Agreement.
[2024] FWC 848
DECISION
AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2024] FWC 848
2
[5] The issue in dispute is whether an employment relationship existed between the
Applicant and the Respondent at the time of dismissal and if so, whether that employment
relationship was one of principal and independent contractor or employer and employee.
[6] Directions were issued for the filing of submissions and any evidence on 13 February
and 26 February 2024. The Applicant filed a response to the jurisdictional objection, an “outline
of merits” and a list of documents including the previous agreement, a timeline of events and
emails relating to the termination of the relationship. The Respondent did not file submissions
and sought to rely on its Form F3 response, the SDM Agreement signed by the parties on
3 August 2022, a letter sent on 17 November 2023 from Mr Kritas to the Applicant and Mr
Hein notifying them that they were under investigation for alleged breaches of the SDM
Agreement and the termination letter sent on 11 December 2023 to the same.
[7] After seeking the views of the parties, I conducted the proceeding as a determinative
conference on 13 March 2024.
Permission to appear
[8] The Respondent sought to be represented before the Commission by a lawyer.
[9] Relevantly, s. 596(1) of the Act provides that a party may be represented in a matter
before the Commission by a lawyer or paid agent only with the permission of the Commission.
[10] Section 596(2) provides that the Commission may grant permission for a person to be
represented by a lawyer or paid agent in a matter before the Commission only if:
(a) it would enable the matter to be deal with more efficiently, taking into account the
complexity of the matter; or
(b) it would be unfair not to allow the person to be represented because the person is
unable to represent himself, herself or itself effectively; or
(c) it would be unfair not to allow the person to be represented taking into account
fairness between the person and other persons in the same matter.
[11] The decision to grant permission is not merely a procedural step but one which requires
consideration in accordance with s. 596 of the Act.3 The decision to grant permission is a two-
step process. Firstly, it must be determined if one of the requirements in s. 596(2) has been met.
Secondly, if the requirement has been met, it is a discretionary decision as to whether
permission is granted.4
[12] The Respondent submitted that permission to be legally represented should be granted
due to the complexity of the matter and as the Respondent had not filed submissions, it would
enable its legal representative to orally address the Commission on the jurisdictional objection.
[13] The Applicant objected to the Respondent being legally represented on the basis that he
was only notified that the Respondent sought legal representation on the morning of the
[2024] FWC 848
3
determinative conference. The Applicant said that if knew the Respondent would be seeking to
be legally represented, he may have sought to be legally represented himself.
[14] Having considered the parties’ positions, I granted permission for the Respondent to be
legally represented on the bass that representation would enable the matter to be dealt with more
efficiently, having regard to its complexity. At the determinative conference on 13 March 2024,
the Applicant represented himself and the Respondent was represented by Mr Mark Carmody
of Carmody Lawyers.
Relevant Legislative Provisions
[15] Section 394(1) of the Act provides as follows:
“394 Application for unfair dismissal remedy
(1) A person who has been dismissed may apply to the FWC for an order under
Division 4 granting a remedy.”
[16] Section 396 of the Act provides as follows:
“396 Initial matters to be considered before merits
The FWC must decide the following matters relating to an application for an order under
Division 4 before considering the merits of the application:
(a) whether the application was made within the period required in
subsection 394(2);
(b) whether the person was protected from unfair dismissal;
(c) whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair
Dismissal Code;
(d) whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.”
[17] Section 382 of the Act provides as follows:
“382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal
A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:
(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment
with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period;
and
(b) one or more of the following apply:
(i) a modern award covers the person;
[2024] FWC 848
4
(ii) an enterprise agreement applies to the person in relation to the
employment;
(iii) the sum of the person’s annual rate of earnings, and such other
amounts (if any) worked out in relation to the person in
accordance with the regulations, is less than the high income
threshold.”
[18] Section 13 provides the definition of a “national system employee” as follows:
“13 Meaning of national system employee
A national system employee is an individual so far as he or she is employed, or usually
employed, as described in the definition of national system employer in section 14, by a
national system employer, except on a vocational placement.
Note: Sections 30C and 30M extend the meaning of national system employee in relation
to a referring State.”
Evidence and Submissions
Respondent
[19] In its Form F3 response, the Respondent asserts that a commercial and contractual
arrangement was entered into between Joinbte and Be Pay on 3 August 2022 when the two
directors of Joinbte, the Applicant and Mr Hein, signed the SDM Agreement. The Respondent
submits that Joinbte is owned by the Applicant and Mr Hein, and any employment relationship
they have would be with Joinbte itself. The Respondent contends that at no time was the
Applicant ever employed or paid directly by it and as such, no employment relationship existed
such that the Applicant could be dismissed under s. 394.5 In the Respondent’s view, the
termination of the SDM Agreement on 11 December 2023 was the termination of the
contractual relationship between Joinbte and Be Pay.
[20] The Respondent asserts that the SDM Agreement was terminated due to on-going
performance issues and allegations that business arrangements were being made with other
organisations while the Applicant and Mr Hein were meant to be focussing on the development
of the Respondent’s business. Further, the Respondent alleged that the Applicant and Mr Hein
regularly drew from the investment funds for personal use when that money was intended to be
used for developing Be Pay’s business.6
[21] After being notified of the potential breaches of the SDM Agreement, the Respondent
informed the Applicant and Mr Hein on 17 November 2023 that it was initiating an
investigation into the alleged misconduct. The Respondent said that following the investigation
it had proposed reconciliation meetings with the Applicant and Mr Hein but they declined to
attend.7
[2024] FWC 848
5
[22] In relation to how the Applicant was paid by Be Pay, the Respondent’s Form F3 stated
that the Applicant was not paid a salary or wage but rather, the Respondent would agree to
regular drawdowns from the investor funds to Joinbte in amounts ranging from $175,000 to
$300,000. The amounts were to cover “any personal entitlements for the Directors/Management
of the Master’s business” and were subject to change based on performance results, return on
investment and other factors determined by the Respondent.8 In response to Question 1.6 of the
Form F3 – In addition to their salary or wages, was the Applicant entitled to any other monetary
amount(s) or any non-monetary benefit(s) at the time of the dismissal? – the Respondent
answered “No”.9
[23] In oral submissions, the Respondent asserted that the Applicant was not a national
system employee regardless of whether the previous agreement or the SDM Agreement was the
“correct” agreement. In relation to the conduct of the parties under the agreement, the
Respondent submitted that the indicia indicates that the Applicant and the Respondent had an
independent contractor arrangement. The Respondent asserted that the arrangement was one
where the Applicant and Mr Hein: could work whatever hours they saw fit;10 had to hold their
own insurance;11 were entitled to employ own staff;12 and were paid for their services through
commission and the issuance of cryptocurrency tokens. Further, the Respondent confirmed that
payment to the Applicant and Mr Hein was on the basis that they issued an invoice to Be Pay.
The Respondent also confirmed that there was no arrangement for taxation to be deducted, nor
any allowance for superannuation nor annual or sick leave.
[24] The Respondent contends that there are no indicia to suggest the relationship between
the Applicant and Be Pay was anything other than an independent contractor arrangement and
as such, the Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
Applicant
[25] The Applicant stated that he worked for the Respondent from 17 December 2021 to
11 December 2023. He accepted that he signed a contract with Be Pay and BE East Australia
Pty Ltd (another company the Applicant believes is owned by Mr Kritas) in or around
17 December 2021 and an addendum to that agreement on 22 April 2022. The Applicant
tendered an ASIC company search of Be Pay Australia Limited establishing that Mr Kritas was
the current director of Be Pay.
[26] The Applicant asserts that after signing the agreement, Mr Kritas directed him and Mr
Hein to raise funds by selling cryptocurrency and told them that those funds would then be
jointly managed. However, the Applicant said this did not occur. The Applicant contends that
after the funds were raised, he and Mr Hein were forced into a sham contract, being the SDM
Agreement. This is the crux of the Applicant’s application and is the basis upon which he asserts
that his dismissal was unfair.
[27] The SDM Agreement was tendered by the Respondent.13 It was signed on 3 August
2022 by the Applicant and Mr Hein on behalf of Joinbte, in their capacity as directors. Under
cross-examination, the Applicant accepted that he and Mr Hein are the directors of Joinbte Pty
Ltd as trustee for the Joinbte Unit Trust and that he completed and signed the forms required to
register the company with ASIC. The Applicant also said that he and Mr Hein signed a trust
deed to create the Joinbte Unit Trust and received advice from his accountant prior to doing so.
[2024] FWC 848
6
[28] The Applicant strongly disputes the authenticity of the SDM Agreement and alleges that
it is a sham contract. The Applicant asserts that he was “in a personal contract”14 under which
he and Mr Hein raised investment funds for Mr Kritas. Once those funds were obtained, the
Applicant submits that Mr Kritas directed them to set up Joinbte.15 After Joinbte was registered,
the Applicant said that Mr Kritas “reissued” a new agreement between Be Pay and Joinbte,
being the SDM Agreement. The Applicant contends that the SDM Agreement is a sham because
the Respondent paid for all the setup and running costs of Joinbte and that it only exists because
of Be Pay.
[29] The Applicant strongly asserts that he is an employee of the Respondent on the basis
that he was directed on how, where and when to conduct his work.16 He said that his work hours
were determined by Mr Kritas and that it was expected he would start in the morning and finish
in the afternoon. The Applicant also said he was provided with a computer, work uniform,
promotional material and business cards paid by Be Pay to carry out his work duties.17
[30] In relation to leave, the Applicant said that if he was sick, he would notify others in a
WhatsApp group chat and he would still be paid for the day of leave. The Applicant confirmed
he was not entitled to annual leave.
[31] In response to my question about how the Applicant received monies from Be Pay after
the SDM Agreement was signed, he said that he was instructed by Mr Kritas to issue invoices
to Be Pay on a fortnightly basis. Be Pay would then deposit the money into Joinbte’s account
and the Applicant would be paid by disbursing the money to himself. The Applicant said he
was not paid contingent on work performance.18 When asked who was responsible for the
payment of tax, the Applicant said that Joinbte was responsible for paying company tax.
[32] In relation to the Applicant’s alleged dismissal, he said that he was informed by Mr
Kritas in November 2023 that the Respondent was conducting a five-week investigation into
allegations that the Applicant and Mr Hein were colluding with competitors and running
another business during the hours they were supposed to be working for Be Pay.19 Under cross-
examination, the Applicant accepted that prior to signing the SDM Agreement with Be Pay, he
and Mr Hein had started another business called “WinBackDeals.com”, an online deals site.
The Applicant said they had not generated any income from “WinBackDeals.com” and besides
a two week trial, they did not work on that business while working for Be Pay.
[33] The Applicant asserts that his alleged dismissal is unfair because to date, he has not been
informed of the outcome of the investigation. He also submits that he was unable to discuss the
investigation or allegations with Mr Kritas because Mr Kritas would only discuss the matter
through “iCourt” (which the Applicant says is a recorded Zoom meeting with a judge and jury
appointed by the Respondent) and it could not be done on a without prejudice basis. Further,
the Applicant contends that his alleged dismissal is unfair because there was a lack of dedicated
human resources and “expertise in the enterprise” because Mr Kritas was the only person that
the Applicant was able to talk to and deal with.20
Terms of the SDM Agreement
[2024] FWC 848
7
[34] The SDM Agreement is between two proprietary companies, Be Pay Australia Ltd and
Joinbte Pty Ltd. Clause 14 of the SDM Agreement expressly characterises the engagement as
an independent contractor relationship. Clause 14 states as follows:
“14. Independent Contractor:
Your engagement under this Agreement is as an independent Contractor and you work
according to your own schedule and roster provided that you meet your obligations
herein and your agreed Business Plan submitted to BePay. There is no other relationship
between yourself, or BePay or the Licensor or the CDM or any other partner within the
Barteos system except as agreed in your service role. All Service Fees payable to you
under this and all agreements is made on verification of sales or work conducted and the
lodgement of an Invoice to BePay by email to accounts@barteos.org.au.”
[35] Under the SDM Agreement, Joinbte (not the Applicant) is engaged as a “Master Agent”
to act as a sales leader of Be Pay and promote Be Pay memberships within Australia.21
[36] Clause 25 of the SDM Agreement outlines the basis upon which the Respondent may
terminate the agreement and Joinbte’s services. It states as follows:
“25. Termination:
BePay may terminate this agreement and your Services without notice if you:
(a) do not bank funds from the sales or exchange of Products or Services or
cryptocurrency of BePay into the nominated accounts as provided to you;
(b) bank funds from the sales of Products or Services of BePay into your personal bank
or cryptocurrency accounts without written authourisation (sic);
(c) are found to be guilty of any serious misconduct including and not limited to,
dishonesty, fraud, misappropriation of funds, stealing physical or digital property or
acting in any way which in the opinion of either BePay or the Licensor could damage
or be likely to damage the business interest or reputation of BePay or its affiliated
companies or Clients;
(d) commit a material breach of this agreement;
(e) is charged with a serious criminal offence;
(f) in the opinion of BePay, is continually or grossly negligent or incompetent in the
performance of the Services;
(g) has introduced the sale of a product or service that is unrelated to Barteos and has
done so without the written agreement of BePay;
(h) fail to remedy a Notice of Default from BePay or the Licensor, after the service of a
written notice which sets out the nature of the default, how the default can be remedied,
and a reasonable time for remedy (which need not be more than 30 days);
[2024] FWC 848
8
(g) in the opinion of BePay, is colluding or working with a competitor.”
[37] Under Annexure B to the SDM Agreement, clause 8 entitled “Independent Contractor”
states as follows:
“8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
As a Contractor you are not employed by anyone or any entity nor do you have a day-
to-day working relationship with the Country Manager or its team, other than the
relationship pursuant to the Contract you signed and nor are you a subsidiary company
of the Licensor or the Country Manager or the CDM or any of their entities that you
work for with or in conjunction with their team. The Parties further acknowledge that
the Licensor or the Country Manager or the CDM has no financial or other interest in
your business or company. By entering into a Contract and despite any training,
assistance and supervision afforded by the Licensor or the Country Manager or the
CDM, the Contractor acknowledges that it shall always be an independent contractor
providing services to the Licensor or the Country Manager or the CDM or the entities
that you work for with or in conjunction with Licensor or the Country Manager or the
CDM, and no party shall accrue any right or create any express or implied obligations
on behalf of or in the name of the other. The Contractor shall at their own costs provide
all resources, including but not limited to communication lines, staff recruitment,
salaries, administration and sales expenses, stationery and forms and office space to
adequately house and carry out its duties and business pursuant to their Contract. The
Contractor shall be liable for their own taxes, including GST, superannuation and any
entitlements and all financial infrastructure.”
Consideration
Is the Applicant an Employee or an Independent Contractor?
[38] The principles to be applied in distinguishing between employees and independent
contractors has been summarised in recent authorities. The High Court recently revised the
applicable legal principles to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent
contractor in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel
Contracting Pty Ltd (‘Personnel Contracting’)22 and ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v
Jamsek (‘Jamsek’).23 A useful analysis was applied in the Commission decision of Waring v
Hage Retail Group Pty Ltd (‘Hage’):24
“[52] In two judgements delivered on 9 February 2022 the High Court of Australia
pronounced on the law that applies in determining whether, absent a specific statutory rule, a
person is an employee or contractor. In doing so, the Court reviewed past decisions of the Court
(and other courts) and set out afresh relevant legal principles.
[53] In important respects the law as expressed by the High Court in Jamsek and Personnel
Contracting has modified, if not replaced, former approaches. In particular, the past approach
of the Commission (itself based on past court authority) as outlined in the leading full bench
case of French Accent is, with some limited caveats, no longer good law.
[54] The High Court, via the combination of judgements in both Jamsek and Personnel
Contracting, has largely rejected an approach whereby the relationship between parties across
[2024] FWC 848
9
its life span is examined (including how the relationship operates in practice). The Court has
stated that contractual terms and not performance, where those terms can be ascertained and
where the contract is not a sham, will determine the true nature of the relationship. However,
the Court has observed that the manner in which the relationship is worked in practice may be
relevant for certain limited purposes, such as to find contractual terms where they cannot
otherwise be ascertained or to determine the nature of any variation to agreed terms.
[55] Indicia (such as those identified in earlier cases in the Court) may be relevant but only
insofar as the terms of the contract give voice to them. One approach, to be used as a guide, is
to look at whether, under the contract, the worker is engaged to work in the business of another,
though this may not necessarily be useful in all cases. The extent of a contractual right to control,
as evident from the terms of the contract itself, remains a major signifier of an employment
relationship. That an arrangement was brought about by the superior bargaining power of one
party has no bearing on the meaning and effect of the contract.
[56] Amongst the caveats expressed by the Court, is that a mere label acting as a subterfuge
to the true nature of the contractual relationship will not determine the status of the parties. In
this respect at least, the law remains unchanged by these recent decisions.” (footnotes omitted)
[39] In respect of the Applicant’s assertion that the previous agreement and SDM Agreement
(the Contracts) were sham contracts25 I reject this claim. The High Court upheld an appeal from
the Full Court of the Federal Court in respect of the Sham Contracting provisions of the Act.26
The High Court expressed the view that the purpose of the protection against Sham Contracting
in the Act was not intended to be frustrated by a narrow interpretation.27 The High Court
concluded that a representation that a person who is actually an employee is instead an
independent contractor would offend the protection afforded by the Act.28
[40] The various terms of the Contracts between the Respondent and the Company of which
the Applicant is a Director, demonstrate a business to business relationship. The role of the
Applicant as a Director of the Company with which the Respondent is engaged encompasses a
range of duties and obligations under the Corporations Act. It is uncontested that the Applicant
has held that role since December 2021. I do not accept that some 3 years later the Applicant
having not ever challenged his role as a Director in that relationship and having fulfilled his
many obligations as a Director over that period of time, can possibly suggest now that the
relationship has come to an end, that he was not a Director of a Company doing business with
the Respondent but is rather now an employee of the Respondent. The Applicant has for
example fulfilled entirely different taxation obligations over the previous 3 years as he would
have if he was an employee. The arrangements in place have not been challenged by the
Applicant until the cessation of the arrangement.
[41] In this case I consider that the contractual terms are clear and in accordance with the
High Court authorities, it is unnecessary to consider the indicia. The Applicant is not an
employee of the Respondent. If I were to consider the indicia, on the evidence before me and
as set out in this decision, I would also find that they do not point to an employment relationship.
Conclusion
[42] I am therefore satisfied that there is no employment relationship between the Applicant
and the Respondent. That being the case, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the
[2024] FWC 848
10
Applicant’s employment was terminated at the initiative of the Respondent. The Applicant’s
application for unfair dismissal is therefore dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
R Santoro, Applicant.
M Carmody for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2023.
Brisbane (via Microsoft Teams):
March 13.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR773119
1 Digital Court Book at p. 151 (‘DCB’).
2 Ibid at p. 139.
3 Warrell v Fair Work Australia [2013] FCA 291.
4 Ibid.
5 DCB at p. 139.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid at p. 143.
8 Ibid at p. 140.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid at p. 43.
11 Ibid at p.33.
12 Ibid at p.29.
13 Ibid at pp. 150-176.
14 Ibid at p.11.
15 Ibid at 57.
16 Ibid at p.11.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
FAIR WORK NO THE
[2024] FWC 848
11
19 Ibid at pp. 16-17.
20 Ibid at p. 19.
21 Ibid at p. 151.
22 Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1.
23 ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2.
24 Waring v Hage Retail Group Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 540.
25 Ibid at p.11.
26 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.357.
27 Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Holdings Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 137; 90 ALJR 107; [2015] HCA 45, [15]-
[17].
28 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.357.
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2022fwc540.htm
http://anzlaw.thomsonreuters.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2037712495&pubNum=0003586&refType=U2&originationContext=ebook&RS=ebbp3.0&vr=3.0&comp=wlau
