The employee worked over a period of 6 years as a n.a. designer/drawer on a number of projects. There was no evidence of a written employment contract. It was found that the employee was not employed for a particular task. The employee was hired as the bus drivers` manager. It was found that an internship had similar characteristics to learning. It did not fall within the definition of a declared task. Apprenticeship involves completing training and “providing valuable work to the employer.” It was found that introducing a learning position into the definition of a given task was a “dependant language.” Any work done by the employee outside the specified task does not change the nature of the contract if it is a marginal job or “part and parcel” of the task indicated.  A contract with an “extended and validly unconditional right of termination” is not a contract for a specific task.  The employee was employed as a concrete finalist in a project. His employment ended when the concrete finishing work was completed.
It was found that the task for which he was employed was “distinctive and identifiable” and was therefore a contract for a specific task. The employee`s contract set out the tasks or tasks he had to perform. It was found that this was not enough to get a job for a “specified task.” The term “task” would apply “normally to an identifiable project or an identifiable mission.”  The “specified task” must be the employee`s task and not the employer`s task or project.  The term “specified task” must be interpreted in a restrictive manner.  It applies only to situations where a worker works under a contract for “a project or a clean activity.”  It should not leave open the possibility for the worker to work on other tasks outside of the specific mission for which the worker was employed.   Hewitt v. ACTek Custom Engineering Pty Ltd, PR904665 (AIRC, Lacy SDP, May 25, 2001) at paragraph 24. Qantas Airways Limited v Fetz e.a., Print Q1482 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Harrison SDP, Lawson C, June 9, 1998), [(1998) 84 IR 52]. Hudson v Coonawarra Jack Winery Pty Ltd T/A Coonawarra Jack Winery  FWA 9266 (O`Callaghan SDP, October 30, 2012). The Lusaka Agreement Task Force is the secretariat and operational arm of an intergovernmental treaty known as the Lusaka Agreement on cooperation enforcement measures for the illegal trade in wildlife in Africa. The treaty was brought to life in December 1992 by wildlife prison officers from eight east and South African countries in Lusaka, Zambia, under the aegis of Zambia`s Ministry of Tourism. Pasalic v Technometal Pty Ltd  FWA 8136 (Sams DP, October 9, 2012).
Working group meetings were held within the framework of CITES, Interpol and special agents from the Special Services of Fish and Wildlife and Wildlife Services, as well as lawyers from the Foundation for the Development of the International Force (FIELD) at the University of London. The development of this African initiative a year later led to formal intergovernmental negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The result was the adoption on 8 September 1994 in Lusaka, Zambia, of the Lusaka Cooperation Agreement on Coercive Measures Against the Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora. The agreement will be tabled with the SECRETARy-general of the United Nations in New York and will be dealt with by un environment XXVII.11. #map_canvas_1 – on-board links: -25%; #map_canvas_1 – Margin-Top: -10%; #map_canvas_1 width: 140%; Amount: 140%; #map_canvas_1 – Background Repeat:no-repeat; Bottom size: 100% 100%; >  Drury v BHP Refractories Pty Ltd  IRCA 293 (June 16, 1995), [(1995) 62 IR 467 on p. 471-u2012472]. A state agency created or designated, coordinated with the working group responsible for investigations and cooperation activities related to the illegal trade in wildlife.