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 (00:00):
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 key
we SAVI contributions, among other things. Jane Tips Trainee is
The Herald's Wellington Business editor and is with us tonight, Hi, Jane.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Evening Ryan.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
So the unions presented their evidence this morning. What do
they argue, Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
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 sort of relentless and intensive. They say
it's so intense that there is no way that these

(00:52):
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

(01:14):
Uber can change the terms and conditions as it wishes,
and the drivers kind of have no choice but to
agree to these.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Yeah, so they basically say they had no choice but
to accept when Uber cut their fares.

Speaker 2 (01:27):
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 receive 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

(01:49):
level of control that Uber has. 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 there 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

(02:12):
fair 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

(02:33):
if they 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 flexibility they can apparently apparently they love the

(02:54):
flexibility they can choose 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 1 (03:02):
Yeah, what has Uber's defense been saying.

Speaker 2 (03:06):
Well, basically that the flexibility is such 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 how significant

(03:30):
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 gig economy,

(03:50):
but perhaps the salience of it might not be as
great because the government is actually changing the law to
provide some clarity in the.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Space fascinating case. We'll keep watching that it's still going.
Is it presumably in the Supreme Court there, Jannae.

Speaker 2 (04:05):
I think it wrapped up today. It was 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 changed
or not. So it's quite a bit there for the
lawyers to digest.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
I think absolutely, and one might sort of null and
void the other anyway, Jenny, appreciate your time. Jenne to
Traineye and the New Zealand Herald, Wellington Business Editor. For
more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to news talks.
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.