Jenee Tibshraeny: NZ Herald Wellington business editor on Uber fighting back against 2022 employment ruling

Unions are urging Uber to consider New Zealanders needs - after drivers protested outside the Supreme Court today.

It's over an Uber appeal of a 2022 ruling that deemed four drivers employees, allowed things like sick leave and holiday pay.

NZ Herald Wellington business editor Jenee Tibshraeny explains further.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks B Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Uber's in the Supreme Court this week fighting a twenty
twenty two ruling. This ruling classified four drivers as employees.
The company reckons drivers have too much freedom to be
treated as employees and should not receive leave and kei
we Saver contributions, among other things. Jane tips Trainee is
The Herald's Wellington Business editor and is with us tonight. Hi, Jane, Evening, Ryan.

(00:42):
So the unions presented their evidence this morning. What do
they argue?

Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 3 (00:48):
The unions say that these drivers definitely are employees. They
say that the level of control that Uber has over
the way they go about making their income is so restrictive.
They call it a sort of relentless and intensive. They
say it's so intense that there is no way that

(01:09):
these drivers are in fact contractors. So, you know, the
lawyers for the unions ran through a number of things.
They sort of picked apart the contracts that drivers you know,
sign with Uber, saying that the drivers have basically no
power in these so these contracts are non negotiable and

(01:30):
Uber can change the terms and conditions as it wishes,
and the drivers kind of have no choice but to
agree to these.

Speaker 2 (01:37):
Yeah, So they basically say they had no choice but
to accept when Uber cut their fares.

Speaker 3 (01:44):
That's right. So one of the examples that the lawyer
used was dating back a few years now, but he said,
you know that Uber changed the fares so that the
drivers received less income and also changed the way that
the fares were calculated, and they just had to sort
of suck it up and deal with it. So one
of the things that's been debated in court is the

(02:06):
level of control that Uber had. Another thing that's been
debated is just how related Uber is to the business.
So Uber makes the case it says, well, actually, we're
not that involved. We just provide the platform and the
real agreement is between the driver and the passenger. But
the unions say that's not right. Uber plays a big
role because Uber sets the fair, then Uber collects the fare,

(02:29):
and then you know, gives the driver their cut from there.
And Uber controls things like the sorts of information it
gives the drivers. It penalizes the drivers if they don't
get good ratings. The unions went so fast to say
that Uber actually, you know, penalizes the drivers if they

(02:50):
do something wrong when they're not even driving. So the unions,
the judges just sitting in court for a bit of
the time. The judges seem quite receptive to the union's argument.
But you know, Uber also said, well, our drivers want this,
Like they've surveyed the drivers. They love the flexible they
can apparently apparently they love the flexibility they can choose

(03:11):
when they work. And you know, Uber says they agree
to this contract, no one forces them to sign it.
So it's a tough call.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
Yeah, what has Uber's defense been saying.

Speaker 3 (03:23):
Well, basically that the flexibility is such that it's that
you can't possibly call the driver's employees. Now, Uber has
been fighting this battle all around the world, and it
says that the sort of contractor model is, I mean,
it's central to the way it operates. So the fact
it's taken it to the Supreme Court, you know, shows

(03:45):
how significant this is for Uber. A thing Ryan that's
happening here in the background is that the government is
actually in the process of changing the law. So it's
a bit more prescriptive on you know, what exactly constitutes
being a contractor versus an employee. So the effect of
this case could be significant for other people in the

(04:05):
goog economy, but perhaps the the salience of it might
not be as great because the government is actually changing
the law to provide some clarity in the space.

Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah, fascinating case. We'll keep watching that. It's still going.
Is it presumably in the Supreme Court there, Jane.

Speaker 3 (04:22):
I think it wrapped up today. It will set down
for two days, so I guess it'll take the judges
some time to deliberate. But it'll be interesting to see
whether the outcome is announced before the law has.

Speaker 2 (04:33):
Changed or not.

Speaker 3 (04:36):
So it's quite a bit there for the lawyers to digest.

Speaker 2 (04:38):
I think absolutely, and one might sort of null and
void the other anyway, Jenny, appreciate your time. Jenne to
trainee and the New Zealand Herald, Wellington Business Editor.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
For more from News Talks b listen live on air
or online, and keep our shows with you wherever you
go with our podcasts on Irradio.