Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 FEBRUARY 2018

Recent Uber decision takes the employer/contractor distinction for a ride

Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Contributor
Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich is a large national commercial firm with offices in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Holding Redlich

Traditional tests for employment relations do not cater for technology dependent, revenue sharing, business structures.

AustraliaEmployment and HR

Kaseris v Rasier Pacific V.O.F

Uber has successfully argued that its business arrangements with drivers that are centred around technology based revenue sharing systems do not create an employment relationship with Uber drivers. Instead, the Fair Work Commission determined in a recent unfair dismissal case that no such employment relationship existed because Uber engaged these drivers as independent contractors.

Deputy President Gostencnik's decision on a jurisdictional challenge by Uber to the unfair dismissal claim centred on the finding that there was no work-wages bargain between Uber and Uber drivers, identifying this bargain as the 'minimum mutual obligation' required for an employment relationship to exist. In reaching this decision, Deputy President Gostencnik recognised the limitations of using this criteria as these principles developed before the Gig economy and did not take into account that manner of work. As a result of applying these traditional

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from