Uber drivers succeed in being declared employees in the Employment Court

Civil Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Employment Law
Oct 31 2022

Last week the Employment Court released its decision in which it has found in favour of four Uber drivers, ruling that they are deemed to be employees rather than independent contractors. This is in contrast to an earlier decision of the Employment Court in 2020 which held an Uber driver was not an employee.

Employment Court Decision

The Employment Court was tasked with assessing the real nature of the relationship between the four Uber drivers and Uber to determine whether the drivers are employees or independent contractors. In doing so, the Court looked at the real nature of the relationship, including looking at features of control, economic reality, and integration which were present in the relationship between the drivers and Uber.

After hearing a raft of evidence from both sides over a two month period, the Employment Court made a declaration that the drivers were employees. This declaration meant, among other things, that the drivers were entitled to approximately six years of backdated wage entitlements such as sick leave and annual leave.

In reaching its decision, the Court looked past the wording of the drivers’ contractual terms. Little weight was given to the drivers being labelled as “independent contractors”. Rather, the Court prioritised the control which was exercised by Uber over the drivers. For example, the contractual terms were set by Uber with the drivers being unable to engage in any negotiation. This in itself reinforced a high degree of control over their drivers.

A key part of the control over the drivers was Uber’s ability to set the prices for each driver’s fare and not revealing this information until the driver had accepted the ride. In doing so, Uber deprived the drivers from assessing the profitability of each potential ride. Drivers were unable to run their business as they saw fit which the Court recognised as a hallmark of an independent contractor.

Control was not limited to pricing; drivers were unable to uniquely market their services. They could not develop their own branding, sign-write their cars, or differentiate themselves in any meaningful way. The contractual terms and app also functioned in a way which prevents drivers from establishing business relationships with clients. Any goodwill accumulated by the drivers was limited to Uber’s driver rating system which drivers could not control.

The Court held that the only way for a driver to increase their profits, was to work longer hours.

Along with the drivers’ inability to determine the price for their services, the way in which the rides are distributed were also controlled by Uber. Drivers with higher ratings would be offered more profitable rides more often; those with lower ratings were offered limited work.

Ultimately, Uber was unable to convince the Court that they were purely a platform which connected customers with drivers. Uber emphasised that drivers are able to choose their times of work and work in other jobs. The Court did not accept this point – in a post-pandemic employment environment flexible working has become common place and is a neutral factor in determining whether someone is an independent contractor.

The Court also gave little weight to drivers providing their own vehicle and mobile phone as an indication of the drivers being contractors. Historically, providing your own equipment implied a significant investment into a specialised craft, however, most people have access to a car and a mobile phone so the Court considered this was not a specific investment for the role with Uber.

What does this mean for the future?

Uber NZ has signalled that they will be appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal. This may help in providing clarity given we now have two judgments from the Employment Court which both reach different outcomes.

We consider this to be a timely reminder for businesses that they need to regularly review any independent contractor arrangements they may have, and assess the real nature of the relationship. If you require assistance with this please contact a member of our experienced employment law team.

AUTHORS

You may also like ...
Swearing in the workplace – can I be dismissed for swearing at work?
Swearing? We are all guilty of doing it to some extent, but what about in the workplace? Is it acceptable and if so, to what degree? Can your employer discipline you for an outrage of expletives? In some circumstances and in certain workplaces, dismissal may be wholly warranted, while in others, it may not, notwithstanding that it is the same conduct in question. Confused? Context is key alongside a myriad of factors to be taken into consideration. Ultimately it will come down to what is fair and the workplace culture. The issue of “fairness” is addressed in the Employment Relations Act 2000 which tells parties whether a dismissal will be fair or not. For instance, in the case of Waihape v AFFCO New Zealand Limited [2017] NZERA 13 several mitigating factors were taken into consideration, including the context of the situation, the nature of the workplace and the relationship between the parties involved. In Waihape, it was determined that given the nature of the workplace, several individuals regularly swore in their day-to-day banter and an employer would struggle to justify taking action for a staff member using bad language in those circumstances. The evidence showed that management failed to crack down on similar offensive language in the workplace. The Authority quoting from precedent said: “It is well established that an employer will fail to justify a dismissal where communications do not appear to be greatly out of character with others apparently condoned by management in the workplace.” Overall, case law suggests that if an employer wishes for certain standards to be upheld, it will need to ensure there are policies in place to make employees aware that swearing is unacceptable. Furthermore, employers will need to demonstrate that it does not tolerate swearing in the workplace by enforcing the policy when it is breached. It is both best practice and prudent for employers to ensure that the expected and acceptable standards of behaviour are addressed and imbedded into any training and induction processes. Above all else, it is imperative that employers do not single out an individual for the use of course language while letting other employees get away with the same. The key takeaway is, like with all disciplinary matters, a fair procedure must be followed. An employer will need to establish the facts and review any offensive language in the context of the circumstances alongside the company’s relevant policies. Before taking disciplinary action, an employer will need to carefully consider whether a verbal warning or written warning is more appropriate. Dismissal would only be justifiable if the employee’s conduct warrants gross misconduct and summary dismissal. Whether you are considering taking action against an employee or you are an employee facing disciplinary action yourself, we recommend getting cogent advice first. Speak to our team today.  
Read more
Restructuring in the workplace – What employers need to know
With the economy continuing on its downward slide, you will not be alone in giving thought to potential cost cutting measures, including reducing your labour costs. Restructuring is usually a last resort for employers and is only a step that tends to be taken when there seem to be no other viable options for reducing costs quickly.  While the impact on employees is immense, it is clear that a restructure process can be just as stressful and fraught for an employer.  That is why, sometimes, employers can get things wrong and may find themselves at the centre of a personal grievance, which can result in greater stress, cost and uncertainty. A restructuring needs to be substantively justified, and procedurally correct.  If you do not meet both of these requirements, there is a risk that if an employee were to make a claim against you, it could be upheld. What is Substantive Justification? It is likely that during recessionary times, such as we are in now, the substantive reasons for a restructure will be fairly obvious to your employees.  However, you will still need to justify this by providing evidence in support.  This may include pointing to reduced sales figures or forecasts, showing increased costs (i.e. materials, rent, insurance), or any other information that you are willing to share that goes toward justifying the proposal to restructure. What is the Correct Procedure? The procedure for restructuring is usually where an employer can get tripped up.  To start, you need to remember that you should not pre-determine that a restructure is inevitable.  You have a good faith obligation to your employees to consult with them before any decisions that may affect their employment are made.  It may be that during consultation, you are able to see a way forward that means a restructure is not required, or at least not to the extent that you had originally envisaged. Once you have substantive justification, you need to advise your employees that you are proposing a restructure and give them adequate information including what the restructure would entail, how it would impact them, and how you wish to consult with them about it. You will then move to the consultation stage and be ready to provide further information or answer any questions the employees may have.  Once you have finished consultation, you will need to advise the employees of your proposed decision.  Your employees should then be given an opportunity to comment on or ask further questions about the proposed decision.  It is not until they have been given this opportunity that you should procced to confirm your decision. The exact process you follow will depend on factors such as the size of your workforce, the number of roles that may be impacted, the typical method of communication with employees, the specific terms of your employment agreements, and the location of your employees. Having guided employers through numerous restructures, the one point we want you to keep in mind is that getting your restructure right is by far more preferable than having to deal with the consequences (and potential costs) of getting it wrong.  We can provide specific advice and guidance on restructuring and all other employment related issues, so please contact our employment law team at any time for further information.
Read more
Holidays Act – could change finally be on the horizon?
Earlier this week the Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden gave a speech to the Auckland Business Chamber, reiterating her priorities following the conclusion of the Government’s 100-day plan in which Fair Pay Agreements were abolished, and the availability of 90 day trial periods extended to all new employees. The Minister has confirmed that delivering changes to the Holidays Act (“Act”) is one of her top priorities, which is likely to be welcome news to both employers and employees. Compliance with the Act has been difficult and costly for employers and payroll providers. The Labour Government put together a taskforce in 2018 to address the many issues being experienced by employers when calculating leave and holiday entitlements. The taskforce made a number of recommendations, all of which were accepted (for further details on these changes see our previous article here). A draft Leave Entitlements Bill was prepared, however was not introduced prior to last year’s election. The overarching issue with the Act is that there are multiple ways to calculate an employee’s holiday pay, and the Act has struggled to keep up with working arrangements outside of a normal five day a week salaried employee. Payments such as bonuses, commission, or if an employee works variable hours mean that the calculations are not straight forward and are often done incorrectly. The changes proposed were an attempt to simplify these calculations. The Minister has now confirmed that the changes recommended by the taskforce and the draft Bill will not be “simply rubberstamped” and will be subject to scrutiny as well as consultation with key stakeholders. She went on to say “if the policy is difficult to draft, chances are businesses would have a tough time implementing it too”. This indicates a major reset of the Act, and the changes which we had expected, could be on the way. Other indicated changes to employment law include a change to the rules surrounding contractors (with the Court of Appeal due to hear the Uber case this month (see here for our previous advice regarding this), we are likely to also have further developments in this area from the Courts later in the year) and changes to personal grievances. The Minister has asked for advice on whether an income threshold for raising a personal grievance can be set and removing eligibility for any remedies when an employee is at fault. The Minister has been very clear that she would like to receive feedback from the stakeholders who will eventually have to work with the Act and it is important that businesses use this opportunity to have a say on the Act. The majority of employers have struggled to achieve strict compliance with the Act due to its many complexities. Putting forward issues which regularly impact your business will ensure these can be given consideration. Our team will be closely monitoring this and will provide specific information on how feedback can be given when this information is available. If you require assistance with your current obligations under the Act, or would like to discuss providing feedback then please feel free to get in touch with a member of our specialist employment law team.
Read more

Start typing and press enter to search

Scroll to Top