The Australian Human Rights Commission has rejected an argument that authorised representatives (ARs) are independent contractors.

It comes after an adviser took a case against AMP Financial Planning to the commission.

He claimed the company’s rejection of him as an AR due to his six previous drink-driving offices was discrimination.

AMP Financial Planning argued that even if it had appointed him, it would not have been on an employer-and-employee basis.

“We wish to highlight that the adviser did not apply for employment with AMP Financial Planning but rather appointment as an AR operating under AMP Financial Planning licence,” it told the commission.

“If successful in his application, he would have been an independent contractor subject to the terms of an authorised representative agreement.”

AMPFP argued the potential arrangement was therefore not covered by the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.

Commission President Gillian Triggs’ report says the question is whether AMP Financial Planning made an exclusion under the Act “nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation”.

“The rejection of the adviser’s application to be appointed as an authorised representative is an ‘exclusion’ within the scope of the definition of ‘discrimination’,” Ms Triggs said.

“The adviser contends the reason for the rejection of his application was his criminal record.”

She considered AMP Financial Planning’s assertion the adviser would not be an employee and therefore fell outside the Act. But she says the commission’s remit is not limited to the traditional relationship between employer and employee.

“I am satisfied the… Act was intended to protect all workers including independent contractors and self-employed workers. Had the adviser been appointed as an authorised representative by AMP Financial Planning, he would have been able to provide financial services on its behalf.

“He would have been legally entitled under the relevant regulatory regime to work as a financial planner.”

Ms Triggs says the adviser was not given that opportunity based on his criminal record.

“I find the rejection of the adviser’s application had the effect of nullifying or impairing his equality of opportunity or treatment in employment,” she said.

The commission has recommended AMP Financial Planning apologise and pay the adviser $5000 for the hurt, humiliation and distress it caused.

But the company says it will not “provide any substantive response to this request”.