In a recent decision,
This case involved
Mr Arachchige was 'an independent provider of peer-to-peer passenger transportation services'.-
By providing transportation services to passengers a legal and direct business relationship was created between
Mr Arachchige and the passengers. -
Rasier NZ's provision of the
Uber services created a legal and direct business relationship between Rasier NZ andMr Arachchige andUber BV's licence to him of theUber Driver App created a legal and direct business relationship betweenUber BV and him. -
Neither Rasier NZ nor
Uber BV was deemed to direct or control him generally in his performance under the agreement, including the connection with his provision of transportation services.
From 2015 to 2019,
In considering this issue, the Employment Court stated that while similar cases had arisen in
Section 6 of
The Court found that the Services Agreement and how the relationship operated in practice suggested there was not an employment relationship, for reasons including:
- The Services Agreement did not require drivers to work exclusively for
Uber . -
Drivers were not required to display any
Uber logo or other signage. - While some matters in the Services Agreement might also be present in an employment agreement (e.g. qualification requirements and performance expectations), such matters could also be present in other agreements (e.g. franchise agreements).
-
While
Mr Arachchige had no power to negotiate terms, he was not particularly vulnerable or lacking comprehension of what he had agreed to. Mr Arachchige determined whether, where and for how long he undertook services.Mr Arachchige provided his own equipment, including deciding what vehicle to use (subject toUber 's basic licensing and Certificate of Fitness requirements).Mr Arachchige was responsible for his tax obligations.-
While the work of drivers was integral to
Uber 's business, in practiceUber had very little control over howMr Arachchige carried out his part of the undertaking.
As the Court found there was no employment relationship,
While this case is very significant, particularly as the status of
Arachchige v
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
lus Laboris
1160
Tel: 2895 4521
E-mail: arnd.dewit@iuslaboris.com
URL: www.iuslaboris.com/en-gb/
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source