The Employment Court recently found that four Uber drivers were employees while providing transportation services under the Uber app. E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV [2022] NZEmpC 192 follows an earlier judgment of the Employment Court last year, which held that the Uber driver in that case was an independent contractor, not an employee (see Arachchige v Rasier New Zealand Ltd [2020] NZEmpC 230). Uber has publicly stated that it intends to seek leave to appeal against the most recent decision.

The defendants in E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV, collectively referred to as the Uber Group, are individual companies making up the Uber ride sharing and meal delivery service digital platform. The four drivers had written agreements with the various entities at different points in time between August 2016 and May 2022. The written agreements all specified that the entities were not employers, but rather providers of the app that connects drivers to the digital platform and facilitators of the interactions on the platform. The defendants’ position was that these written agreements accurately described the relationships.

The Court considered that the evidence pointed to Uber running a transportation business, not merely a digital platform that facilitates interactions between drivers and passengers. It held that the drivers worked for that business; it was not simply a commercial arrangement; and they did not run a business of their own. The real nature of the relationship was held to be one of employment.

Chief Judge Inglis applied the “control test” and stated at [58] that:

“Uber was able to exercise significant control because of the subordinate position each of the plaintiff drivers was in and which its operating model was designed to facilitate and did facilitate.”

While Chief Judge Inglis pointed out that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make broader declarations of employment status to include, for example, all Uber drivers, her Honour observed (at [95]) that:

“While a declaration attaches to the individual applicant worker it may well have broader impact, particularly were, as here, there is apparent uniformity in the way in which the companies operate, and the framework under which drivers are engaged.”

The full updated commentary is available at:

Employment Relations Act 2000, s 6 (see [ER6.01(1)(b)], [ER6.01(2)(c)], [ER6.03(26)].