Resources: Blogs

Tripping Out

Blogs
|

FWO investigation finds Uber drivers not employees

Since it arrived in Australia, Uber has been under fire for its disruption of the transport industry and its complicated relationship with its drivers.

Since it arrived in Australia, Uber has been under fire for its disruption of the transport industry and its complicated relationship with its drivers.

At present, Uber is facing a class action law suit from taxi and hire car drivers in Australia, as well as an enquiry into the working conditions of on-demand workers by the Victorian Government. Globally, drivers have protested seeking fairness in pay and better safety conditions.

Of all the issues faced by Uber, one of the most persistent has been the employment status of its drivers – are they Uber employees or independent contractors working for themselves?

The issue has been the subject of debate both internationally and here in Australia.

In the Fair Work Commission (FWC), several Uber drivers have brought unfair dismissal applications alleging that they were employees of Uber and were unfairly dismissed when their access to the driver app (through which they can accept driving jobs) was switched off.

The FWC has found that those Uber drivers were not employees able to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction.

Despite these findings, commentary about the status of Uber drivers continued with ongoing calls for the office of the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) to intervene. This resulted in the FWO conducting an investigation into Uber’s arrangements with its drivers.

That investigation was recently concluded with the FWO finding that the relationship between Uber and drivers was not an employment relationship.

The FWO released a statement confirming the outcome of its investigation and advising that it had examined a wide range of evidence, including driver contracts, log on/off records, as well as interviews with drivers and Uber Australia, ABN documents, payment statements, banking records and pricing schedules.

Fair Work Ombudsman Sandra Parker said that key to any employment relationship is the obligation to perform work and that this obligation was absent in Uber’s arrangements with drivers. Ms Parker said drivers are not required to perform work at a particular time but rather, they have control over whether, when and for how long they work on any given day or week.

As a consequence of its findings, the FWO has announced that it will not take compliance action in relation to Uber’s arrangements with its drivers.

This finding will likely put to rest the calls for the FWO to intervene in Uber’s dealings with drivers but the FWO has noted that its findings relate specifically to Uber and not to the gig-economy more generally.

The FWO confirmed that it will continue to assess allegations of non-compliance with workplace laws in the gig-economy on a case-by-case basis.

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

Failure to warn employee renders dismissal unfair

Template lesson

Many businesses, and in particular small businesses employers subscribe to human resources information systems which offer access to template letters and policies to provide a ready-made solution or to manage human resources administration.

Read more...

Employer’s withdrawal of role constituted dismissal from employment

Late withdrawal

For most employers, casual employment is favoured because of the flexibility it provides – employees are employed as required and have no guarantee of ongoing employment. This flexibility however does not mean that casual employees are not protected from adverse action.

Read more...

Employee unfairly dismissed for requesting family and domestic violence leave

Boiling point

All employees (including part-time and casual employees) will soon have the entitlement to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave per year under the National Employment Standards, replacing the existing entitlement to five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave.

Read more...

First Intractable bargaining order made by the Full Bench

How did it end?

Enterprise agreement making under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires bargaining representatives to bargain in good faith. Under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission was provided with new powers to arbitrate and issue a workplace determination to resolve intractable disputes about terms and conditions of proposed enterprise agreement in circumstances where there are no reasonable prospects of the parties reaching an agreement.

Read more...

Federal Court finds employee was not demoted due to his exercise of workplace rights

The final decision

Employees are protected from adverse action because they have exercised, or propose to exercise, the workplace right to make a “complaint” or “inquiry” in relation to their employment within the meaning of section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.

Read more...

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 law and sports law.

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