A job title, ABN or family relationship does not necessarily decide whether you are covered by WorkCover Queensland. The key question is whether, in substance, you worked as an employee or fell within another category of worker recognised by Queensland law.
The Queensland Court of Appeal’s decision in WorkCover Queensland v CRG Harvesting Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 124 shows why the reality of the working relationship matters—particularly in a family business.
What happened in CRG Harvesting?
Carlo Germanotta worked in his family’s North Queensland cane-harvesting operation.
In August 2018, he suffered catastrophic injuries while repairing harvesting machinery. A cane-harvesting tractor slipped from a jack and crushed him after another worker climbed into its cabin.
CRG Harvesting admitted liability for the other worker’s negligence. However, WorkCover Queensland disputed whether Mr Germanotta was a “worker” under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
WorkCover argued that:
- there was no genuine contract of employment;
- the family’s employment arrangements were a sham; and
- Mr Germanotta was effectively acting as a director of the company and was therefore excluded from the statutory definition of worker.
The trial judge rejected those arguments. The Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed WorkCover’s appeal and upheld the finding that Mr Germanotta was a worker.
Why was Mr Germanotta treated as an employee?
There was no formal written employment contract. Nevertheless, the Court accepted that a contract of employment could be inferred from the parties’ conduct.
Relevant evidence included:
- regular weekly wages;
- PAYG tax withholding;
- superannuation contributions;
- payroll records;
- work performed for the company; and
- the practical direction and organisation of that work.
The Court considered what was actually happening at the time of the injury—not simply the labels later applied to the arrangement.
Post-accident accounting entries, including a retrospective reversal of wages for tax purposes, did not undo the employment relationship that already existed.
What did the Court say about WorkCover’s “sham” argument?
A sham is not established merely because an arrangement is informal, tax-effective or involves members of the same family.
It requires evidence that the parties intended their arrangement to have a different legal effect from the one it appeared to have.
The Court also noted important procedural problems with WorkCover’s case: the allegation had not been properly pleaded with specificity and had not been put to the relevant witnesses in cross-examination.
The evidence did not establish that Mr Germanotta’s employment was invented or disguised.
Was he excluded because he was a director?
Queensland workers’ compensation legislation may exclude a person who performs work under a contract of service with a company while acting in the position of a director.
Mr Germanotta had signed some documents associated with directors’ declarations. However, the Court examined what he actually did within the business.
He did not participate in:
- corporate governance;
- financial management;
- company administration; or
- managerial decision-making.
The isolated documents did not establish that he was acting as a director in substance. An administrative label or incorrectly signed document was not enough.
What about contractors?
Not every contractor is excluded from WorkCover, but not every contractor is covered either.
For many people, the issue is not resolved simply by asking whether they:
- have an ABN;
- issue invoices;
- are called a subcontractor;
- work on a casual basis; or
- have signed a “contractor agreement”.
The legal assessment may include matters such as:
- who controls how the work is performed;
- whether the person can delegate the work;
- how payment is calculated;
- who provides tools and equipment;
- whether the person operates an independent business;
- who bears commercial risk;
- the parties’ tax and superannuation arrangements; and
- how the relationship operates in practice.
Queensland legislation also treats some people as workers, or excludes them, in particular circumstances. Each arrangement therefore needs to be considered individually.
Are family members covered by WorkCover?
A person does not lose worker status merely because their employer is owned or operated by relatives.
In a family business, relevant evidence may include:
- regular wage payments;
- payroll and timesheet records;
- PAYG withholding;
- superannuation;
- rosters and allocated duties;
- who gives instructions;
- the person’s actual management responsibilities; and
- whether the person genuinely performs work for the company.
Informality is common in family businesses, but it can create serious evidentiary and insurance problems after an accident.
What happened to the damages award?
The Court of Appeal also upheld the trial judge’s assessment of economic loss.
This included:
- past economic loss assessed at $300 per week for seven years; and
- a 15% discount for contingencies when assessing future economic loss.
WorkCover’s appeal was dismissed with costs. The judgment of approximately $1.299 million against CRG Harvesting remained in place, together with the order requiring WorkCover to indemnify the company.
What should an injured person do?
If WorkCover disputes your status as a worker, preserve documents showing the practical reality of your work, including:
- bank statements and payment records;
- payslips, invoices and tax records;
- superannuation records;
- rosters and timesheets;
- messages containing work instructions;
- photographs of the work or equipment;
- employment or contractor agreements; and
- ASIC records if director status is disputed.
Do not assume that WorkCover’s description of the relationship is necessarily final. Strict time limits may apply to statutory claims, reviews and common-law damages claims.
What should employers do?
Employers—especially family businesses—should ensure that their employment, payroll, tax, superannuation and corporate records accurately reflect how the business operates.
Changing accounting records after an accident may create further disputes rather than solve them.
Authority: WorkCover Queensland v CRG Harvesting Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 124; Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).