# Fair Work Ombudsman media release: Uber drivers not employees



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

Full text of Fair Work Ombudsman statement:

Uber Australia investigation finalised
7 June 2019

The Fair Work Ombudsman has completed its investigation relating to Uber Australia Pty Ltd (Uber Australia) and its engagement of drivers.

Fair Work Ombudsman Sandra Parker said that inspectors examined a wide range of evidence, including drivers' contracts, log on and log off records, interviews with drivers and Uber Australia, ABN documents, payment statements, banking records and pricing schedules.

"The weight of evidence from our investigation establishes that the relationship between Uber Australia and the drivers is not an employment relationship," Ms Parker said.

"For such a relationship to exist, the courts have determined that there must be, at a minimum, an obligation for an employee to perform work when it is demanded by the employer."

"Our investigation found that Uber Australia drivers are not subject to any formal or operational obligation to perform work," Ms Parker said.

"Uber Australia drivers have control over whether, when, and for how long they perform work, on any given day or on any given week."

"Uber Australia does not require drivers to perform work at particular times and this was a key factor in our assessment that the commercial arrangement between the company and the drivers does not amount to an employment relationship," Ms Parker said.

"As a consequence, the Fair Work Ombudsman will not take compliance action in relation to this matter."

"This investigation related solely to Uber Australia and was not an investigation of the gig economy more generally," Ms Parker said.

Companies in the gig economy use a range of business models and the Fair Work Ombudsman will continue to assess allegations of non-compliance on a case-by-case basis. Anyone with concerns about their employment arrangements should contact the FWO.

(https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-u...eleases/june-2019/20190607-uber-media-release)


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

(1) Role of the Fair Work Ombudsman

Fair Work Ombudsman

Parent Portfolio: Jobs and Innovation

The Fair Work Ombudsman promotes harmonious, productive and cooperative workplaces. They help employees, employers, contractors and the community to understand and comply with Australia's workplace laws. They provide information and advice, investigate workplace complaints and enforce Commonwealth workplace laws.

Fair Work Ombudsman - external site: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/

(https://www.australia.gov.au/directories/australia/fairwork)

(2) Sandra Parker, Fair Work Ombudsman

Sandra Parker - the Fair Work Ombudsman
Sandra Parker PSM was appointed to the position of Fair Work Ombudsman for a 5 year term on 15 July 2018.

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 Sandra is responsible for promoting harmonious, productive and cooperative workplace relations and ensuring compliance with Commonwealth workplace laws.

Sandra was awarded a Public Service Medal for her outstanding contribution to workplace relations policy and program delivery on Australia Day 2018.

Prior to her appointment as Fair Work Ombudsman, Sandra served as a Deputy Secretary at the Department of Jobs and Small Business and its predecessors for eight years. She was Deputy Secretary, Employment Services and Deputy Secretary, Workplace Relations and Economic Strategy.

In earlier roles, Sandra was the head of the Office of the Australian Safety and Compensation Council and a senior executive at the Commonwealth Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. She has also held various policy and program management positions in the vocational education and training field, at both Commonwealth and state government levels.

Sandra began her career in education with secondary teaching roles in Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and in London.

She holds a Bachelor of Education from the University of Tasmania and is a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. She is also an alumnus of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and the Australia New Zealand School of Government.

(https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/key-people/sandra-parker-the-fair-work-ombudsman)


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

London’s “Tribunal” says Employees
the outback say Contractor

Split the difference: it’s a crap ? Gig
period


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Jack Malarkey said:


> "For such a relationship to exist, the courts have determined that there must be, at a minimum, an obligation for an employee to perform work when it is demanded by the employer."


 I've gotta say, it's very concerning that the FWO has never heard of casual employment.


----------



## Kyanar (Dec 14, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> I've gotta say, it's very concerning that the FWO has never heard of casual employment.


That's a slightly invalid comparison. For casual work, the employer sets shifts and offers the set shift times to the employees. For Uber to be a casual job using that logic, they'd have to pre-set shifts and only allow you to log on during set shift times. "Sorry, you cannot sign on at 4:57 PM. The next shift starts at 6 PM and runs until midnight. Do you want to take that shift?"


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Kyanar said:


> That's a slightly invalid comparison. For casual work, the employer sets shifts and offers the set shift times to the employees. For Uber to be a casual job using that logic, they'd have to pre-set shifts and only allow you to log on during set shift times. "Sorry, you cannot sign on at 4:57 PM. The next shift starts at 6 PM and runs until midnight. Do you want to take that shift?"


That is often how casual employment works, but there is no legal requirement for shifts to be of preset hours. I've picked up many a casual employee who has been sent home earlier than expected, and they haven't been paid for the hours they didn't end up working. When there is an offer of work, there is no obligation on the part of the casual employee to accept it, yet they are still employees. The FWO's reasoning is flawed.


----------



## RoboRider (Aug 26, 2018)

UberDriverAU said:


> That is often how casual employment works, but there is no legal requirement for shifts to be of preset hours. I've picked up many a casual employee who has been sent home earlier than expected, and they haven't been paid for the hours they didn't end up working. When there is an offer of work, there is no obligation on the part of the casual employee to accept it, yet they are still employees. The FWO's reasoning is flawed.


Difference still is that the employer sets the hours of work. They may have offered a shift and then ended it early but they set the hours - that is not the case with rideshare. You really think you understand the employment rules better than the FWO


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

RoboRider said:


> Difference still is that the employer sets the hours of work. They may have offered a shift and then ended it early but they set the hours - that is not the case with rideshare. You really think you understand the employment rules better than the FWO


Again, that's not a legal requirement for casual employment. Reread what the FWO said, and then answer this question: is it true that a casual employee is obliged to work if their employer demands it? According to the FWO, that is (at a minimum) what is required to make someone an employee. Forget about Uber and shifts, because thinking about her statement doesn't require thinking about either. The FWO says the answer is yes, do you agree, yes or no?


----------



## Kyanar (Dec 14, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> Again, that's not a legal requirement for casual employment. Reread what the FWO said, and then answer this question: is it true that a casual employee is obliged to work if their employer demands it? According to the FWO, that is (at a minimum) what is required to make someone an employee. Forget about Uber and shifts, because thinking about her statement doesn't require thinking about either. The FWO says the answer is yes, do you agree, yes or no?


You're reading far too much into the choice of wording. Once you have accepted a shift, yes you absolutely are obliged to work. Unlike Uber/Ola/Bolt.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Kyanar said:


> You're reading far too much into the choice of wording


Not really. It's quite a firm statement about what must exist before someone can be considered to be an employee. And if you are honest with at least yourself, you will have to acknowledge that it's simply not true. You might come to the conclusion that someone isn't an employee for other reasons, but a lack of obligation to work on demand can *never* be one of them under current Australian law.


Kyanar said:


> Once you have accepted a shift, yes you absolutely are obliged to work.


That's not true. Either party can end a period of work without notice unless an agreement states otherwise.


----------



## DA08 (Mar 18, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> Not really. It's quite a firm statement about what must exist before someone can be considered to be an employee. And if you are honest with at least yourself, you will have to acknowledge that it's simply not true. You might come to the conclusion that someone isn't an employee for other reasons, but a lack of obligation to work on demand can *never* be one of them under current Australian law.
> 
> That's not true. Either party can end a period of work without notice unless an agreement states otherwise.


What you say is true only if you don't wanna work there anymore.... Even on casual employment you can't decide when you finish and want to go home...


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

DA08 said:


> What you say is true only if you don't wanna work there anymore.... Even on casual employment you can't decide when you finish and want to go home...


It's simply not correct to say a casual employee has a legal obligation to work when their employer demands it or has a legal obligation to finish a shift that they've agreed to work. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the lack of commitment goes in both directions. Whether you're likely to be offered further work may be a practical consideration, but it doesn't equate to an obligation.


----------



## Thing (Oct 7, 2016)

My last casual job was different to Uber. I would receive requests to work certain shifts. The employer set the start and end time. I couldn't just turn up and decide to work a few hours here and there.
With Uber I could. I could start and end when ever I wanted.
My employer had to pay me for a minimum of 2 or 4 hours (I cant remember now) every time they offered me a shift and I commenced working that shift.
With Uber if I log on for 30 mins then log off I didn't get a minimum payment of 2 or 4 hours. I only got paid for whatever fares I did in that 30 mins, if there was no fares then I get paid nuthin


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Thing said:


> My last casual job was different to Uber. I would receive requests to work certain shifts. The employer set the start and end time. I couldn't just turn up and decide to work a few hours here and there.
> With Uber I could. I could start and end when ever I wanted.


When you accept an Uber trip, can you just turn up when you feel like it to complete the work? Could you kick someone out of the car half way to their destination because you wanted to finish up there and then? What would happen if you did?


Thing said:


> My employer had to pay me for a minimum of 2 or 4 hours (I cant remember now) every time they offered me a shift and I commenced working that shift.
> With Uber if I log on for 30 mins then log off I didn't get a minimum payment of 2 or 4 hours.


That's because your (former?) employer acknowledges that you are an employee and had to abide by an award or agreement. There isn't a legal obligation for minimum hours for casual employees outside of an award or agreement. Uber doesn't recognise you as an employee, so they're not going to pay you as such.


----------



## Kyanar (Dec 14, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> When you accept an Uber trip, can you just turn up when you feel like it to complete the work? Could you kick someone out of the car half way to their destination because you wanted to finish up there and then? What would happen if you did?


Terrible example. Independent contractors are also required to actually complete any unit of work they are contracted to complete. This example does not support your argument.



UberDriverAU said:


> That's because your (former?) employer acknowledges that you are an employee and had to abide by an award or agreement. There isn't a legal obligation for minimum hours for casual employees outside of an award or agreement. Uber doesn't recognise you as an employee, so they're not going to pay you as such.


And even then, unlike an employer, Uber doesn't offer you any shifts. As such of course they aren't going to give you minimum pay just for signing on, because they never asked you to work in the first place. Another example that doesn't support your argument.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Kyanar said:


> Terrible example. Independent contractors are also required to actually complete any unit of work they are contracted to complete. This example does not support your argument.


It's not a terrible example, it's an example of how you can't just start and finish work whenever you feel like it as an Uber driver. Once you have accepted that offer of work, you had better start heading towards your passenger within a few minutes or there are potential consequences.


Kyanar said:


> And even then, unlike an employer, Uber doesn't offer you any shifts. As such of course they aren't going to give you minimum pay just for signing on, because they never asked you to work in the first place. Another example that doesn't support your argument.


People bring up all sorts of misunderstanding about what a casual employee really is. You don't have to accept work that is offered to you when it is offered or demanded by your employer. You're not entitled to minimum hours unless an award or agreement applies. You can end your shift (ie. period of employment) whenever you want unless an agreement to the contrary applies. And you do indeed get a minimum amount for completing an Uber trip, even if it's a 10 second, 100 meter trip. You need to distinguish between "logging on" which is letting Uber know that you are "available to work right now", and "accepting a trip" which is the same as "accepting a shift".


----------



## Kyanar (Dec 14, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> It's not a terrible example, it's an example of how you can't just start and finish work whenever you feel like it as an Uber driver. Once you have accepted that offer of work, you had better start heading towards your passenger within a few minutes or there are potential consequences.


No, it really is a terrible example. As an independent contractor, _not_ Uber driver, you _still_ can't just start and finish work whenever you feel like it. If you take on a contract, you better be willing to complete that contract within the terms set or there are consequences. _This_ _does not support your argument that Uber drivers are employees. At all._



UberDriverAU said:


> People bring up all sorts of misunderstanding about what a casual employee really is. You don't have to accept work that is offered to you when it is offered or demanded by your employer. You're not entitled to minimum hours unless an award or agreement applies. You can end your shift (ie. period of employment) whenever you want unless an agreement to the contrary applies. And you do indeed get a minimum amount for completing an Uber trip, even if it's a 10 second, 100 meter trip. You need to distinguish between "logging on" which is letting Uber know that you are "available to work right now", and "accepting a trip" which is the same as "accepting a shift".


I think it is you who is misinterpreting parts to try and suit the narrative that a driver is an employee. There really is nothing to suggest this is the case, with the driver providing the tools, the labour, no set expectation of hours or method of work - all signs point to the FWO being absolutely correct as to the status of a driver. And frankly, why would you _want_ to be an employee? Way to kill all the flexibility that exists for those of us who aren't interested in another 9-5.

What you should be fighting for is protections against unfair conditions in Uber's contractual arrangements- an end to unilateral rate changes, an end to unfair deactivations, an end to one sided treatment of rider/driver disputes.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Kyanar said:


> No, it really is a terrible example. As an independent contractor, _not_ Uber driver, you _still_ can't just start and finish work whenever you feel like it. If you take on a contract, you better be willing to complete that contract within the terms set or there are consequences. _This_ _does not support your argument that Uber drivers are employees. At all._
> 
> I think it is you who is misinterpreting parts to try and suit the narrative that a driver is an employee. There really is nothing to suggest this is the case, with the driver providing the tools, the labour, no set expectation of hours or method of work - all signs point to the FWO being absolutely correct as to the status of a driver. And frankly, why would you _want_ to be an employee? Way to kill all the flexibility that exists for those of us who aren't interested in another 9-5.
> 
> What you should be fighting for is protections against unfair conditions in Uber's contractual arrangements- an end to unilateral rate changes, an end to unfair deactivations, an end to one sided treatment of rider/driver disputes.


My point is, this is wrong according to our courts:



FWO said:


> "For such a relationship to exist, the courts have determined that there must be, at a minimum, an obligation for an employee to perform work when it is demanded by the employer."





FWO said:


> "Uber Australia does not require drivers to perform work at particular times and this was a key factor in our assessment that the commercial arrangement between the company and the drivers does not amount to an employment relationship," Ms Parker said.


This isn't true for casual employment, therefore it cannot be used to distinguish between an independent contractor and a casual employee. As I said earlier, there may be other factors which make someone something other than a casual employee, but this factor certainly cannot be a "key factor".

If an employer calls a casual employee up and demands that they work between 9am and 5pm tomorrow, are they obliged to do so? I know that you know the answer to that is no. It's pretty clear that the FWO's statement isn't correct.


----------



## Kyanar (Dec 14, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> If an employer calls a casual employee up and demands that they work between 9am and 5pm tomorrow, are they obliged to do so? I know that you know the answer to that is no. It's pretty clear that the FWO's statement isn't correct.


You've already been told numerous times why you're misinterpreting that statement. I'm not engaging with it any further.


----------



## DA08 (Mar 18, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> My point is, this is wrong according to our courts:
> 
> This isn't true for casual employment, therefore it cannot be used to distinguish between an independent contractor and a casual employee. As I said earlier, there may be other factors which make someone something other than a casual employee, but this factor certainly cannot be a "key factor".
> 
> If an employer calls a casual employee up and demands that they work between 9am and 5pm tomorrow, are they obliged to do so? I know that you know the answer to that is no. It's pretty clear that the FWO's statement isn't correct.


Dude give it up... Know when you're beaten...

Btw why in the world would you want to be an employee?? Give it a rest - we're not employees, i DON'T WANT TO BE an employee.... You wanna be an employee go get a job with an employer.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

DA08 said:


> Dude give it up... Know when you're beaten...
> 
> Btw why in the world would you want to be an employee?? Give it a rest - we're not employees, i DON'T WANT TO BE an employee.... You wanna be an employee go get a job with an employer.


It's interesting that some here attempt to define what they think the legal definition of "casual employee" must be when they've most likely never read any court judgments. It's not actually defined in legislation anywhere, it's defined in case law. If you actually read what I've said in this thread, the ability to refuse work in and of itself cannot be a "key factor" in saying that Uber drivers are not employees. Believe it or not, that particular argument has unsuccessfully been made in court and workers who were classified as "independent contractors" were found to be "casual employees". Uber drivers might be "independent contractors" due to other factors, but the FWO's statement clearly doesn't match what our courts have had to say about this particular factor in court judgments. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it is what it is.


----------



## RoboRider (Aug 26, 2018)

UberDriverAU said:


> My point is, this is wrong according to our courts:
> 
> This isn't true for casual employment, therefore it cannot be used to distinguish between an independent contractor and a casual employee. As I said earlier, there may be other factors which make someone something other than a casual employee, but this factor certainly cannot be a "key factor".
> 
> If an employer calls a casual employee up and demands that they work between 9am and 5pm tomorrow, are they obliged to do so? I know that you know the answer to that is no. It's pretty clear that the FWO's statement isn't correct.


@UberDriverAU there is a really simple solution. You go and persuade ScoMo to appoint you to the FWC and then you can sort them out. Until then, they are the ones making the decision so unless you want to fund a court appeal this is all just your speculation and opinion.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

RoboRider said:


> @UberDriverAU there is a really simple solution. You go and persuade ScoMo to appoint you to the FWC and then you can sort them out. Until then, they are the ones making the decision so unless you want to fund a court appeal this is all just your speculation and opinion.


Who to believe, the FWO:


FWO said:


> "For such a relationship to exist, the courts have determined that *there must be, at a minimum, an obligation for an employee to perform work when it is demanded by the employer.*"





FWO said:


> "*Uber Australia does not require drivers to perform work at particular times and this was a key factor in our assessment that the commercial arrangement between the company and the drivers does not amount to an employment relationship*," Ms Parker said.


or the Federal Court?


> 102. On Call asserted an absence of control over the panel interpreters. *In particular, On Call emphasised its incapacity to control interpreters by reason of its incapacity to require panel interpreters to take work. I accept that On Call had no power to require a panel interpreter to accept an assignment*. On Call's standard contracts for interpreters provided that an interpreter was free to accept or reject an assignment. The evidence showed that often panel interpreters refused assignments offered. Often panel interpreters refused to agree to stay on where an extension of a booking was sought by On Call's client or return to perform an assignment, the commencement of which had been delayed. Often panel interpreters cancelled engagements, including with no notice or with insufficient notice.





> 267. The principal basis upon which *Ms Hulusi asserted a lack of control was On Call's inability to require panel interpreters to work, either by taking assignments, extending assignments or not cancelling assignments*. The contrast on these matters with On Call's capacity to direct its full-time interpreters to carry out work, was central to Ms Hulusi's view that On Call lacked control. That, however, is a matter to which little significance can be attached in this case. *Whilst an on-going employee has an obligation to work during the hours for which the employee has been engaged, a casual employee, and in particular an ad hoc casual, has no such obligation. Whilst a lack of an obligation to work is a feature of an independent contractor it is also a feature of casual employment*: Sgobino at 308.





> 268. A requirement that a person commence work at a particular time and a prohibition on the refusal of work (as was the case in relation to the bicycle couriers dealt with in Hollis: see at [49]) is a manifestation of the existence of control by the putative employer. *The absence of those requirements, especially where work is sought by the putative employer on an irregular and ad hoc basis, is not demonstrative of a lack of control*: Wesfarmers Federation Insurance at [69]-[72]. It does not detract from the conclusion I have otherwise reached that the degree of control available to and exercised by On Call was extensive: see Roy Morgan (2010) at [48]-[49]. *The situation was no different to very many other employees employed as casuals*: Sgobino at 307.


I think I'll accept the view of the Federal Court over the FWO, with all due respect.


----------



## DA08 (Mar 18, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> Who to believe, the FWO:
> 
> or the Federal Court?
> 
> I think I'll accept the view of the Federal Court over the FWO, with all due respect.


Dude give it up... WE'RE NOT EMPLOYEES - is it really thst hard to understand?


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

DA08 said:


> Dude give it up... WE'RE NOT EMPLOYEES - is it really thst hard to understand?


Dude, learn to read, it's not that hard. I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.


----------



## DA08 (Mar 18, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> Dude, learn to read, it's not that hard. I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.


Ok you go away and be ubers employee, don't forget as an employee you can't reject any trip - you have to accept them all. 
What a dumbass you are - i just don't understand why you're so set in bein an employee...


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

DA08 said:


> Ok you go away and be ubers employee, don't forget as an employee you can't reject any trip - you have to accept them all.
> What a dumbass you are - i just don't understand why you're so set in bein an employee...


It's sad that you can't have an intelligent conversation just because you don't want to be considered an employee. Get with the program mate, what I'm saying can be correct and you can still be something other than an employee. So why don't you just focus on what I'm actually saying, rather than what you want?


----------



## Thing (Oct 7, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> When you accept an Uber trip, can you just turn up when you feel like it to complete the work?


Your question is wrong. It should be - can I log on when ever I want to? As that is I start work when uber driving.
And the answer to that question is YES.


UberDriverAU said:


> Could you kick someone out of the car half way to their destination because you wanted to finish up there and then? What would happen if you did?


Yes & I did it numerous times. They pissed me off to the point where I kicked them out, then I went home :smiles:
What happened? I guess they rated me low.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Thing said:


> Your question is wrong. It should be - can I log on when ever I want to? As that is I start work when uber driving.
> And the answer to that question is YES.


Perhaps your definition of "work" is different to what the legal definition might be. I'm curious, what work are you doing when you log on and are sitting in your lounge room waiting for a trip to come through? ?


Thing said:


> Yes & I did it numerous times. They pissed me off to the point where I kicked them out, then I went home :smiles:
> What happened? I guess they rated me low.


I think we all know Uber would give a driver the sack if they repeatedly kicked passengers out for no reason, if not for the complaints they would receive, then certainly for the large number of one star ratings.


----------



## The Source (Nov 27, 2018)

UberDriverAU said:


> I think we all know Uber would give a driver the sack if they repeatedly kicked passengers out for no reason, if not for the complaints they would receive, then certainly for the large number of one star ratings.


Ants still think they're self employed though when they're not self employed at all.

But but but flexibility.


----------



## DA08 (Mar 18, 2017)

The Source said:


> Ants still think they're self employed though when they're not self employed at all.
> 
> But but but flexibility.


Loooolllll hahahahahha.... Dude ants are self employed - an employee doesn't need an abn to operate or pay GST. Also any contractor who doesn't abide by the rules of his/her contract can lose his/her contract (deactivated in ubers/ola case).

But do tell why do you think ants are employees?


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

DA08 said:


> Also any contractor who doesn't abide by the rules of his/her contract can lose his/her contract (deactivated in ubers/ola case).


That's also true for employees. Just ask Israel Folau.


DA08 said:


> But do tell why do you think ants are employees?


You didn't ask me, but seeing as I've actually made an effort to understand what makes an employee an employee, I'll share some of what I've discovered. There are all sorts of factors that can point towards an employment relationship. One of the most decisive is whether you are personally required to do the work. There can be no doubt that you are personally required to do the work as an Uber driver. You can delegate to neither an employee of yours nor a subcontractor. A truly independent contractor would be completely free to do so.

The fact that drivers have ABNs, pay GST, etc, would most likely have no bearing on how a court would decide. As our courts correctly note, the party who is in a stronger bargaining position is often able to force their chosen characterisation upon another party. If a contract doesn't match reality, then our courts will ignore what the contract has to say where there is a discrepancy. So a contract can say "you agree you're not an employee" and a court can still find that you are actually an employee.

As this thread readily highlights, there are all sorts of misconceptions about what must be true if you're an employee. Not all employees are paid an hourly rate, some are paid purely on commission, some are paid purely on piece rates, and our courts have still found that they're employees.

If you're willing to take off the blinkers, assumptions, and stubbornness, you just might be surprised by what you find.


----------



## The Source (Nov 27, 2018)

DA08 said:


> Loooolllll hahahahahha.... Dude ants are self employed - an employee doesn't need an abn to operate or pay GST. Also any contractor who doesn't abide by the rules of his/her contract can lose his/her contract (deactivated in ubers/ola case).
> 
> But do tell why do you think ants are employees?


Do self employed find their own work? Yes.

Do uber drivers find their own work? No.

Do self employed set their own rates? Yes.

Do uber drivers set their own rates? No.

Do self employed know all the details of a job when offered the job? Yes.

Do uber drivers know all the details of a job when offered the job? No.


----------



## DA08 (Mar 18, 2017)

The Source said:


> Do self employed find their own work? Yes.
> 
> Do uber drivers find their own work? No.
> 
> ...


Not all self employed people find their own work... I worked as self employed and had a contact with the company they set the rate and the contract. Yes I was free to find work outside the contract just like any Uber driver is free to find extra work outside the Uber. So your argument is not correct hundred percent.


----------



## JamesBond008 (Mar 26, 2018)

Jack Malarkey said:


> Full text of Fair Work Ombudsman statement:
> 
> Uber Australia investigation finalised
> 7 June 2019
> ...


In other news water is wet, dogs are better than cats, earth is the third planet from the sun and shorten didn't win the election. YAWN.


----------



## Ben Hall (Apr 15, 2016)

*Uber drivers are not like casual employees*
https://www.afr.com/leadership/workplace/drivers-not-like-casual-employees-20190715-p5279k
"Whilst it is true that neither a casual employee nor an Uber driver can be compelled to attend work [if the casual employee refuses casual work offered or the driver decides not to log on to the partner app], having attended work the casual employee can be compelled to work for the period present in exchange for wages paid," she said.
"Conversely the driver, having logged on, cannot be compelled to accept any requests that are sent to the partner app."


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Ben Hall said:


> having attended work the casual employee can be compelled to work for the period present in exchange for wages paid,


That's only true if an award, agreement, or contract applies. In the absence of these, a casual employee can end their period of employment whenever they choose.

Plus, our courts have already answered this question in On Call vs Comm. of Taxation: workers who could not be compelled to work where still found to be employees rather than independent contractors. Even those who were adamant they weren't employees!


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

Ben Hall said:


> *Uber drivers are not like casual employees*
> https://www.afr.com/leadership/workplace/drivers-not-like-casual-employees-20190715-p5279k
> "Whilst it is true that neither a casual employee nor an Uber driver can be compelled to attend work [if the casual employee refuses casual work offered or the driver decides not to log on to the partner app], having attended work the casual employee can be compelled to work for the period present in exchange for wages paid," she said.
> "Conversely the driver, having logged on, cannot be compelled to accept any requests that are sent to the partner app."





UberDriverAU said:


> That's only true if an award, agreement, or contract applies. In the absence of these, a casual employee can end their period of employment whenever they choose.
> 
> Plus, our courts have already answered this question in On Call vs Comm. of Taxation: workers who could not be compelled to work where still found to be employees rather than independent contractors. Even those who were adamant they weren't employees!


Here's a link to the full text of the decision of the Fair Work Commission (Commissioner Michelle Bissett) of Friday 12 July 2019 entitled Rajab Suliman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 4807: https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2019fwc4807.htm.

Summary of the Suliman case by Professional Contractors and Consultants Australia:

The Fair Work Commission has found that in spite of having limited control over the driver and the driver being unable to sub-contract work, there was no work-wage bargain between the applicant and Uber, no employment relationship and therefore no jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal application.

The applicant claimed that because he performed work as a servant of Uber and Uber exerted control over him via the "partner" app, he could be regarded as the equivalent of a casual employment.

Commissioner Michelle Bissett rejected the claim that an employment relationship existed on the basis that there were no consequences if a driver refused a request to work, that Uber did not require workers to drive exclusively for the company, did not provide the tools of trade to carry out the work, did not provide drivers with paid leave and did not pay them a "periodic wage".

The applicant's unfair dismissal claim was rejected.

This follows a lengthy Fair Work Ombudsman investigation that also found no employment relationship existed between Uber and its drivers, and the Pallage and Kaseris cases which also found Uber drivers were independent contractors rather than employees.

Rajab Suliman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 4807 (12 July 2019)

(http://www.professionalsaustralia.o...og/fwc-finds-no-employment-relationship-uber/)


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Jack Malarkey said:


> Here's a link to the full text of the decision of the Fair Work Commission (Commissioner Michelle Bissett) of Friday 12 July 2019 entitled Rajab Suliman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 4807: https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2019fwc4807.htm.
> 
> Summary of the Suliman case by Professional Contractors and Consultants Australia:
> 
> ...


Seriously Jack, it is like these guys live in a bubble isolated from the rest of our legal system. They would disagree with many court judgments based upon the reasoning they give. Instead, they should be applying the same reasoning that those above them have given.


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> Seriously Jack, it is like these guys live in a bubble isolated from the rest of our legal system. They would disagree with many court judgments based upon the reasoning they give. Instead, they should be applying the same reasoning that those above them have given.


I think in view of these various tribunal-level decisions it's imperative we get a decision on these matters in the specific context of Uber drivers in the High Court or at least the Full Federal Court.


----------



## DA08 (Mar 18, 2017)

I just don't understand why the heck does anyone want to have min wage and be an employee? Do you know what comes that? First thing is ypu won't be able to reject a trip.. 
You do as you're told or you get fired.... 
Wjat is wrong with people wanting to be an employee for uber....


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

Jack Malarkey said:


> Full text of Fair Work Ombudsman statement:
> 
> Uber Australia investigation finalised
> 7 June 2019
> ...


The sky is falling...???


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

Background of Commissioner Michelle Bissett:

Michelle Bissett

Senior Industrial Officer, ACTU. Ms Bissett has 23 years experience in industrial and workplace relations [as at December 2009]. She has recently completed a Masters degree in Employment and Industrial Relations.

(https://ministers.employment.gov.au/gillard/fair-work-australia-commissioners-appointed)


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

DA08 said:


> I just don't understand why the heck does anyone want to have min wage and be an employee? Do you know what comes that? First thing is ypu won't be able to reject a trip..
> You do as you're told or you get fired....
> Wjat is wrong with people wanting to be an employee for uber....


It's not a matter or wanting or not wanting to be an employee. At law, you either are or are not. What you want isn't relevant to the correct legal classification. In the On Call judgment I referred to earlier, several workers were adamant they weren't employees. That didn't stop the court from finding that they were actually employees, based upon the totality of their relationship with On Call.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Jack Malarkey said:


> Background of Commissioner Michelle Bissett:
> 
> Michelle Bissett
> 
> ...


I guess we should not expect someone of this background to apply the law in the same way as a Justice of either the Federal Court or the High Court, who would closely examine existing case law to see what principles have been developed and apply those principles to new and varied situations. I think you're right Jack, it's time for this to make it's way up through the court heirarchy. Perhaps all the way to the High Court. That's the only way we're going to get any legal certainty.


----------

