Declarations had been sought under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 by two unions, E Tū Inc and First Union Inc, on behalf of four individuals who had been drivers for companies that were part of the Uber group.

Uber operated a digital labour platform to connect customers with drivers. Drivers agreed to contracts which set out the terms and conditions under which they were able to perform services using Uber's digital platform.

Although the Uber companies were not using a traditional employment model, the Chief Judge said:

“... Uber’s characterisation of its merely-a-facilitator role was not supported by the evidence – particularly the evidence about the high level of control and subordination which characterised the relationships at issue ...” (at [32]).

The drivers were found to have been working for Uber’s business, not their own. The degree of flexibility and choice that drivers were said to enjoy “was largely illusory”.

“The evidence was clear that it is Uber which dictates the contractual terms under which the plaintiff drivers performed services” (at [33]).

The Chief Justice noted that the declarations of employment status were only made in relation to the four named individuals, but also that:

“While a declaration attaches to the individual applicant worker it may well have broader impact, particularly where, as here, there is apparent uniformity in the way in which the companies operate …” (at [95]).