Contains issues that may form the basis of a jurisdictional issue
The 'specified task' must be the employee's task not the employer's task or project.
The term 'task' would 'normally apply to an identifiable project or job'.
The phrase 'specified task' should be narrowly construed. It only covers situations where an employee works under a contract for 'a project or job which is distinct or identifiable in its own right.' It should 'not leave open the possibility' of the employee working on other tasks outside of the specific task for which the employee was employed.
Any work performed by the employee outside the specified task will not alter the nature of the contract if that work is peripheral or 'part and parcel' of the specified task.
A contract that contains a 'broad and effectively unconditional right to terminate' is not a contract for a specified task.
 Qantas Airways Limited v Fetz and others, Print Q1482 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Harrison SDP, Lawson C, 9 June 1998), [(1998) 84 IR 52 at p. 66].
 Hewitt v ACTek Custom Engineering Pty Ltd, PR904665 (AIRC, Lacy SDP, 25 May 2001) at para. 24.
 SPC Ardmona Operations Ltd v Esam, PR957497 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Hamilton DP, Hingley C, 20 April 2005) at para. 86; citing von Doussa J in D'Ortenzio v Telstra Corporation  FCA 1422 (11 December 1997), [(1997) 78 IR 468]; confirmed on appeal in D'Ortenzio v Telstra Corporation [No 2]  FCA 877 (22 July 1998), [(1997) 82 IR 52].