Working Holiday 6 months with one employer dilemma

[GH1988]

Hi All,

 

Looking for a bit of advice on the Working Holiday visa rule of working for one employer for a maximum of 6 months.

 

I have been working for a larger contractor (A) for 5 months who have been paying a smaller sub contractor (B) who then pays me. The reason for doing this was it avoided having to get approval from higher up management to get me on board.

 

My dilemma here is I have almost reached the 6 months where I have been sat in company (A)'s office the whole time and basically working for them, but (B) pays me.

 

Can company (A) then put me through a recruitment agency to start the 6 months again?

 

I have found information on moving recruitment agencies, which you can not do. But have not found much on a situation like mine.

 

I'm currently getting approval from the AIQS for my expression of interest for the 189 Skilled Occupation visa, so I'm debating if going down this route of the agency would potentially come back to bite me and jeopardize my 189 application.

 

Any advice is welcomed.

 

Thanks

 

GH

[Guest]

Since you are looking to stay on a 189 I would say don't take the chance.

 

Technically your employer has changed as someone different would be paying you but given you will need to provide references etc. for the 189 it would become evident you were working at the same place the entire time.

 

Frustrating but I think you need to move on to a different employer.

[Marisawright]

I agree with Lady Rainicorn. If you weren't applying for a 189, I would say you could do a bit of jiggery-pokery and get away with it. However if you're applying for a 189, Immigration will soon suss out that you've breached the conditions of your WHV by working too long with one employer. And that will be the end of your 189 chances - their view is, if you're willing to breach the conditions of any visa, then you're untrustworthy and they won't give you another one.

[Bungo]

You absolutely cannot get around the six month rule by any combination of using different agents or being paid by different companies. This is a breach of your vusa conditions and yes, the 189 application would highlight that you have breached the rules. You need to find a new job.

[blossom]

Agree with all above. It isn't allowed and is totally unadvisable when you are applying for a different visa.

[GH1988]

Thanks for your replies. I was leaning towards getting a new job anyway because something as small as that is not worth risking.

 

Best get my suit out of the closet ready for some interviews!!

 

Cheers

[Raul Senise]

Hi All,

 

Looking for a bit of advice on the Working Holiday visa rule of working for one employer for a maximum of 6 months.

 

I have been working for a larger contractor (A) for 5 months who have been paying a smaller sub contractor (B) who then pays me. The reason for doing this was it avoided having to get approval from higher up management to get me on board.

 

My dilemma here is I have almost reached the 6 months where I have been sat in company (A)'s office the whole time and basically working for them, but (B) pays me.

 

Can company (A) then put me through a recruitment agency to start the 6 months again?

 

I have found information on moving recruitment agencies, which you can not do. But have not found much on a situation like mine.

 

I'm currently getting approval from the AIQS for my expression of interest for the 189 Skilled Occupation visa, so I'm debating if going down this route of the agency would potentially come back to bite me and jeopardize my 189 application.

 

Any advice is welcomed.

 

Thanks

 

GH

 

The employer is generally considered the end user, irrelevant of who is paying the salary.

 

Immigration words it as follows: "You cannot stay in the same position with an employer for more than six months by using different employment agencies, business affiliates or sub-contracting arrangements."

[wrussell]

If the employer nominates for a 457, the '6 month clock' starts again.

[Isabelj28]

If the employer nominates for a 457, the '6 month clock' starts again.

 

What on earth has that got to do with anything? Why would an employer waste time and money sponsoring someone for a 457 who's going for a skilled independent shortly and could then leave and go off on their own?

 

i think it's great when MAs post on here, Rauls' example above is really helpful, but if you just post cryptic one liners then there really isn't much point.

[wrussell]

What on earth has that got to do with anything? Why would an employer waste time and money sponsoring someone for a 457 who's going for a skilled independent shortly and could then leave and go off on their own?

 

i think it's great when MAs post on here, Rauls' example above is really helpful, but if you just post cryptic one liners then there really isn't much point.

 

I have had employers do this more than once to keep an employee in the role. If the 6-month clock was an issue, then that might be a one solution. If it was not an issue, then why mention it?

BTW There are several ways an employee might 'leave and go off on their own'.

[Bungo]

What on earth has that got to do with anything? Why would an employer waste time and money sponsoring someone for a 457 who's going for a skilled independent shortly and could then leave and go off on their own?

 

i think it's great when MAs post on here, Rauls' example above is really helpful, but if you just post cryptic one liners then there really isn't much point.

 

The OPs six months is about to expire, if employer needs or wants to keep them on then it is an option surely? Something to tide them over whilst waiting for the skilled migrant visa.