Australia: Are Uber drivers employees or independent contractors?

Uber now operates around the world and has annual revenue of about US$6.5 billion (and a valuation of about US$80 billion), in no small part thanks to the hundreds of thousands of people it calls its 'driver partners'. But are 'driver partners' employees or independent contractors?

Since its inception, Uber has operated throughout the western world on the premise its 'driver partners' are independent contractors. However, much to Uber's disappointment, there is an ever increasing list of authority suggesting that premise might be wrong.

The distinction really matters. In an article titled Are Uber Drivers Employees? The Answer Will Shape the Sharing Economy, Forbes Magazine last month described the issue as 'the one legal trouble that would fundamentally threaten its business model'.1 Essentially, this is because hiring workers as independent contractors instead of employees is much cheaper; only employees are entitled to minimum wages, overtime, leave, superannuation, termination pay, workers' compensation and collective bargaining.


The Uber driver characterisation has been a particularly hot topic in the US, where some sources suggest Uber has as many as 600,000 'driver partners'. Unfortunately, there is no clear answer yet.

In January 2017, Miami-Dade's Third District Court of Appeal found that Darren McGillis was not an employee because he was not obliged to accept pick up requests, was not under supervision in terms of conduct, dress or other typical employee functions. The Court noted:

Uber drivers like McGillis decide whether, when, where, with whom and how to provide rides using Uber's computer programs [...] This level of free agency is incompatible with the control to which a traditional employee is subject.

Perhaps the true level of control exercised by Uber was not fully appreciated in that decision? Because elsewhere around the US (and the UK), Uber has been taken for a ride.

In mid-2015, the Californian Labour Commission ruled in favour of a former Uber 'employee' – Barbara Berwick – ordering Uber to reimburse her for costs incurred in the course of her employment. The CLC compared Uber drivers to pizza deliverers who are clearly employees despite often using their own vehicles to conduct a separate company's business.2

And in June 2017, the New York Department of Labour found that three 'driver partners' – Jeffrey Shepherd, Levon Aleksanian and Jakir Hossain – were employees. It highlighted:

Uber exercised sufficient supervision and control over substantial aspects of their work as drivers [...] Uber did not employ an arm's length approach to the claimants as would typify an independent contractor arrangement.


Uber took steps to modify the claimants' behaviour, as typical in an employer-employee relationship [...] The overriding evidence establishes that Uber exercised sufficient supervision, direction, and control over key aspects of the services rendered by claimants such that an employer-employee relationship was created.

In other words, Uber exercised a level of control indicative of an employment relationship.

Interestingly, class actions were commenced in California and Massachusetts involving approximately 385,000 drivers, and the actions were settled 'in-principle' on terms that Uber could continue classifying its drivers as independent contractors but was required to:

  • pay US$100 million to the drivers involved;
  • give drivers more information when they are banned from the service;
  • not terminate drivers 'at will'; and
  • create a 'Driver Association' to address drivers' concerns.

Clearly, the terms of the settlement indicate Uber was concerned by the likely findings.

However, the San Francisco District Court rejected the proposed settlement on the basis it was not 'fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable' to the Uber drivers involved.

Watch this space ...


Unlike the US, a recent UK decision suggests the position there is quite clear.

In November 2017, the Employment Appeal Tribunal of London carefully scrutinised Uber's claim that its 'driver partners' were independent contractors in the decision of Uber B.V. and Others v Mr Y Aslam and Others: UKEAT/0056/17/DA. It found they were in fact employees, affirming the first instance decision of the London Central Employment Tribunal.

To put it bluntly, the EAT was scathing of Uber.

The EAT began by analysing core facts of Uber's system, balancing them as suggestive of either independent contractor or employee:

Suggestive of independent contractor Suggestive of employee
  • Drivers supply their own vehicles (subject to those vehicles meeting Uber's specification requirements).

  • Drivers are responsible for costs/ maintenance, including their private hire licences.

  • Drivers 'log on' to work whenever they wish.
  • Drivers go through interview, induction and training before commencing work. The training provides instruction on conduct, behaviour and work performance.

  • Drivers cannot communicate with passengers outside of the Uber platform. They therefore cannot 'expand their business' or negotiate fare rates.

  • Drivers have no capacity to delegate; they must perform the services for Uber themselves.

  • Once 'logged on', drivers are offered jobs and must accept or decline the job within 10 seconds, without knowing the passenger or their desired destination.

  • Although nominally free to accept or decline trips, drivers 'should accept at least 80% of trip requests to retain [their] account status' and drivers who decline three trips consecutively are forcibly logged off.

  • Drivers can face consequences for failing to follow the route proposed by Uber.

  • Uber generates invoices addressed to passengers by drivers.

  • Drivers are paid weekly by Uber, based on the fares charged for trips, less 25% for Uber's service fee.

  • In the event of a dispute, Uber can unilaterally elect to make deductions from drivers' accounts to compensate passengers.

  • Uber sometimes contributes to drivers' costs of cleaning vehicles soiled by passengers.

  • Uber controls the key information (especially passengers' names and contact details).
  • Uber has in place performance management/disciplinary procedures.

The EAT summarised the Employment Tribunal's decision at first instance, noting there was no capacity for drivers to 'grow their businesses other than spending more hours at the wheel' and that:

The notion that Uber in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common 'platform' is to our minds faintly ridiculous.3

However, the most poignant remark by the ET (which was affirmed on appeal by the EAT) related to Uber's suggestion that its function could be characterised as supplying drivers with 'leads'. The ET noted drivers 'do not and cannot negotiate with passengers' and therefore the suggestion that drivers are 'put into contact with a possible passenger with whom he has the opportunity to negotiate and strike a bargain' is 'pure fiction'.

Ultimately, the Employment Appeal Tribunal affirmed the ET's decision that Uber's 'driver partners' are employees. In particular, it found that a driver partner was an employee as soon as he or she was in the territory, 'logged on', and able to work, or as soon as they accepted a trip.

The EAT rejected Uber's argument that there was an agency arrangement, on the basis there was no contract between driver and passenger, and any contract between Uber and passenger was formed long before the driver became involved.

In its concluding remarks, the EAT opined:

On the ET's findings of fact in this case, I do not consider it was wrong to hold that a driver would be a worker engaged on working time when in the territory, with the app switched on, and ready and willing to accept trips ("on duty", to use Uber's short-hand). If the reality is that Uber's market share in London is such that its drivers are, in practical terms, unable to hold themselves out as available to any other [Private Hire Vehicle] operator, then, as a matter of fact, they are working at [Uber's] disposal as part of the pool of drivers it requires to be available within the territory at any one time.4

With over 40,000 drivers in the UK alone, there is no doubt that the implications for Uber will be significant.


There have not yet been any cases directly on point in Australia, but would the answer be any different from the UK? Assuming Uber's relationships with its 'driver partners' are the same in Australia as in the UK and US (which is impossible to know for sure without the benefit of pre-trial disclosure), it seems unlikely.

In Australia, whether a person is an employee or independent contractor is determined theoretically by Part 2 – 5 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) and practically by common law. 5 The same test is applied in a workers' compensation context; section 11 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (which deals with 'who is a worker') simply refers back to Part 2 – 5 of the TAA.

However, the Australian legislation and common law are not dissimilar from the relevant English laws.6 Both effectively require a 'multifactorial' consideration of:

  • the level and manner of control exerted by the principal;
  • the degree of integration or organisation (i.e. whether the individual carries on a business of their own);
  • whether the individual is paid for time or results;
  • the capacity of the individual to delegate;
  • who bears the liability and risk (and who is responsible for rectification);
  • who provides any expensive equipment or assets;
  • whether the individual is required to wear a uniform or otherwise identify the principal; and
  • to a limited extent, what terms parties have agreed in the employment or services contract.

Applying that 'multifactorial test' to the facts carefully analysed in the UK decision, it seems likely the answer in Australia will be the same as the UK – i.e. that Uber's 'driver partners' are employees.

There might be a definitive answer in Australia soon.

The Ride Share Drivers United, which has more than 1,000 members, lodged a complaint with the Fair Work Ombudsman in May 2017 alleging 'rampant abuse' of Australian Fair Work laws. The FWO has since commenced an investigation 'with the purpose of determining whether the engagement of Uber drivers is compliant with Commonwealth workplace laws'.

In addition to the FWO investigation, the Australian Financial Review reports that the Rideshare Drivers Association of Australia met with the Australian Taxation Office in June 2017 and provided information to assist a review of driver classification.7

As it was so eloquently put by Justice Gray in 1989, 'parties cannot create something which has every feature of a rooster, but call it a duck and insist everybody else recognise it as a duck'.8 So too, it might be, with Uber.


1Forbes Magazine, 'Are Uber Drivers Employees? The Answer Will Shape the Sharing Economy', < HTTPS://WWW.FORBES.COM/SITES/OMRIBENSHAHAR/2017/11/15/ARE-UBER-DRIVERS-EMPLOYEES-THE-ANSWER-WILL-SHAPE-THE-SHARING-ECONOMY/#255344FC5E55 >, Date published 15 November 2017.

2Berwick v Uber Technologies Inc, 10 March 2015, CGC-15-546378, 11-46739-EK.

3Uber B.V. and Others v Mr Y Aslam and Others: UKEAT/0056/17/DA at [68].

4Uber B.V. and Others v Mr Y Aslam and Others: UKEAT/0056/17/DA at [126].

5Part 2 – 5 of the Act provides no guidance as to who is an employee or independent contractor. Accordingly, the Australia Taxation Office issued Taxation Ruling 16 of 2005 which essentially refers the question back to the common law. Some of the more well-known cases on point include such as Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 561, Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16, Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21 and ACE Insurance v Trifunovski [2013] FCAFC 3.

6As an example, the UK Employment Rights Act 1996 defines a 'worker' to be an individual who has entered into or works under (a) a contract or employment or (b) any other contract whereby the individual undertakes to do/perform work or services personally for another party without carrying on their own business. That is by no means dissimilar to the Australian position.

7Australian Financial Review, 'Uber faces Fair Work probe for sham contracting', < >, Date published 28 June 2017.

8Re Porter (1989) 34 IR 179, 184.

© Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers

Cooper Grace Ward is a leading Australian law firm based in Brisbane.

This publication is for information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain advice that is specific to your circumstances and not rely on this publication as legal advice. If there are any issues you would like us to advise you on arising from this publication, please contact Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions