Resources: Blogs

Up in the air


Airtasker and workers’ rights

Airtasker is the most recent operator in the “gig” economy facing allegations of sham contracting and underpayment for work performed.

Airtasker is the most recent operator in the “gig” economy facing allegations of sham contracting and underpayment for work performed.

Airtasker is an online service where users who require assistance with a particular job can connect with workers who are available and willing to complete the job. The tasks can range from home and garden maintenance, house cleaning, removal and pickup services to more specialist work including computer and IT support, administration and accounting assistance and marketing and development.

Recently, Unions NSW have released a report entitled “Innovation or Exploitation - Busting the Airtasker Myth” claiming that the Airtasker market system allows minimum rates of pay and health and safety protections to be eroded. Unions NSW point to the online task system where users can post the task and the price they are willing to pay for the task to be completed. There is no set minimum rate of pay and workers who want to complete the task can bid against other workers to secure the job.

The Australian national minimum wage is currently $17.70 per hour with casual employees also entitled to 25% casual loading. In our previous blog “Ride with me – Food delivery bicycle riders and sham contracting” we discussed the issue of sham contracting and a proposed test case.

Airtasker keeps 15% of the agreed rate, again undercutting minimum rates of pay payable to the person performing the work. It is this mandatory fee system which Unions NSW have argued suggests that the Airtasker business model operates as a labour hire agency, particularly as Airtasker forms affiliations with other Australian businesses. In July 2016, it was announced that The Good Guys would partner with Airtasker to allow customers to make a purchase as well as organise a worker to install or set up their purchase.

In addition to contraventions of the sham contracting provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) this situation raises the issue of whether affiliated businesses could be held accountable under the accessorial liability provisions under the FW Act. Section 550 of the Act provides that a person ‘involved in’ the contravention of a civil remedy provision of the Act will be taken to have contravened that provision, with potential liability extending to businesses and individuals.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.


Similar articles

FWO secures penalties against bar operator and external accounting firm

Closing time

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires employers to keep certain employee records for a period of 7 years. These records are necessary to ensure that employees have been paid their minimum entitlements should an underpayment claim be made.


Underpaying employer ordered to pay $475,200 in penalties

Pecuniary penalties no longer a matter of degrees

The Federal Court of Australia has issued one of its first penalty decisions since the High Court of Australia’s decision earlier this year of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13.


Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation December 2020

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission amended the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020 in March 2020 to include temporary measures to facilitate working from home arrangements.


Commission confirms inappropriate touching constituted sexual harassment warranting summary dismissal

‘Scuse you

Sexual harassment in the workplace has been the subject of significant reform over the past few years, with an even greater onus on employers now to take proactive measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of sexual harassment in connection with work.


Employers delay sinks bid for injunctive relief

Speak now

When seeking to enforce a restraint, it is important that employers seek to enforce the restraint in a timely manner to prevent future or an ongoing breach. Any delay will be considered by the courts when assessing whether it is reasonable to enforce the restraint.


Two-year post-employment restraint on hairdresser found to be unreasonable

Splitting hairs

When it comes to drafting post-employment restraints in employment contracts, it is important for employers to consider the purpose of the restraint and whether or not the restraint reasonably serves that purpose.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.