"It requires the court to consider the real nature of the relationship. The real nature of the relationship in this case is joint employment," the decision read.
She considered the nature and operation of the Uber business, the impact of the business model on the drivers, who benefited from the work, who exercised control over the work, indications of intention between the parties, and the extent to which the drivers identified as and were identified by others as being part of the Uber business.
Despite Uber operating a non-traditional employment model, there was evidence that the ride-sharing company had a significant level of control over the drivers who were working in Uber's interest.
"Each of the plaintiff drivers was in an employment relationship when carrying out driving work for Uber and is entitled to a declaration of status accordingly," the decision read.
Chief Judge Inglis clarified the court didn't have jurisdiction to make broader declarations of employment status to include all Uber drivers.
"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, and the framework under which drivers are engaged.
"It is for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of New Zealand to right the course if that is considered appropriate."
Uber has since indicated it plans to appeal the decision.
This judgment is part of a growing trend to establish better protections for contractors. In the 2020 case of Leota v Parcel Express Ltd, a courier driver took his employer to court to test his classification as a contractor, arguing he performed the duties of a permanent employee.
There was the 2005 Supreme Court decision Bryson v Three Foot Six Limited, involving a model-maker hired as a contractor by the company Three Foot Six Limited for work on The Lord of The Rings.
Bryson lost his job as a result of downsizing. Claiming he was an employee, rather than a contractor, would mean he could claim for unjustified dismissal.
The Supreme Court upheld Bryson's claim, but stressed it was decided specifically on the facts and would not change the contracting landscape.
It outlined three features that could be considered when assessing the nature of the employee/employer relationship: the level of control exercised over a person; the extent of integration of that person in the business; and how fundamental they were to the business.
In the 2017 case Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs, two independent contractors of labour-hire company Solutions Personnel Limited/Blue Collar Limited were found to be employees of LSF Sky Chefs Limited.
The case gave rise to the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Act 2019, which purported to ensure employees employed by one employer but working under the control and direction of another would not be deprived of collective agreement status or the opportunity to issue personal grievances.
As the so-called "great resignation" plagues New Zealand and more people join the ranks of the gig economy, contracting seems more appealing as it allows for greater freedom, autonomy, and genuinely flexible working conditions. But contracting also allows companies to offset projects and duties without having to ensure basic employment benefits, rights, and obligations.
Those contractors who inadvertently fall within the realm of employee status in practice but are denied those rights and obligations get the short end of the stick. And what if those contractors don't have the support of a union or the financial and emotional capacity to pursue legal action?
Although trying on all of the parties involved, there's a part of me that hopes the case does escalate to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. It's then that perhaps one day a precedent will be established for broader change across the board.
