Uber companies appeal against employment ruling
Four New Zealand Uber drivers were wrongly found to be employees instead of contractors, the Court of Appeal has been told.
Several companies have appealed against an Employment Court decision delivered in October 2022 that found four drivers to be employees.
Although the Chief Judge of the Employment Court stressed her decision was just about the four drivers named in the case, it was plainly seen as having broader application for the dozens of people who turned up to the Court of Appeal yesterday.
They rallied outside the court before the hearing began.
Former Uber driver Lalogafau Meo’ole Keil said he had left the role after being treated unfairly. “There is no fairness in the workplace,” Keil said while speaking to the crowd alongside members of transport union FIRST Union. He said Uber drivers deserved to be recognised as real workers, as there was no way to “appeal for justice,” with drivers having no way to appeal against complaints that would see them “deactivated” – have their ability to drive for Uber taken away.
“We should be recognised as workers. We deserve to be heard, we deserve justice, we deserve fairness in the workplace.”
Steve Fairley, who has been an Uber driver for five years, said he was confident the courts would find in their favour again. He said Uber drivers around the world had taken the tech giant to court and had won, including in countries such as the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Ghana. “You can’t just roll into a territory or country and do whatever you want.”
In her original decision the Chief Judge of the Employment Court, Christina Inglis, said if the drivers were recognised as employees they should have protections such as minimum hours of work, minimum wages, rest and meal breaks, holidays, leave, bereavement leave, and the ability to pursue a personal grievance.
The lawyer for the companies, Paul Wicks, KC, told the court said there was no evidence that at the beginning the drivers thought they had an employment relationship, and that wasn’t how they worked.
Each driver had complete freedom over when they worked, where, and for how long. They could have other work, even working for Uber’s competitors, and log in to work for Uber when it suited them, he said.
They had no uniform, signage or business cards, and could make choices to maximise their own income, driving at peak times on prime routes, and take steps to reduce expenses, he said.
They had their own cars and could go overseas for three months without notifying Uber.
Part of the purpose of the law in New Zealand was to protect employees, but not to protect workers by making them employees, Wicks said.
E Tū and First unions represented the drivers. Their lawyer, Peter Cranney, said the Uber documents were complex and their purpose was to obscure the legal reality, not to disclose it. The court needed to look at the facts, not the legal documents, he said. Uber decided everything, not the driver or the passenger.