New Zealands top court rules that Uber drivers are employees

WELLINGTON, Nov 17 (Reuters) – New Zealand’s highest court on Monday accepted a lower court ruling that Uber drivers who filed suit against the ride-sharing company should be treated as employees; This is a decision that could pave the way for collective bargaining. The High Court unanimously rejected Uber’s appeal against the Labor Court’s 2022 decision, which stated that the four Uber drivers were employees of the business and not contractors. The lawsuit was filed by two unions on behalf of four Uber drivers. Uber argued that its drivers are not employees but independent contractors who use its platform. The high court’s decision could give Uber drivers rights similar to those in many countries, including the UK. The Workers First Union said the Supreme Court’s ruling “paved the way for thousands of members of the Workers First Union to obtain full employment rights, including the return of historically underpaid wages and benefits” and would now advance collective bargaining. Emma Foley, general manager of Uber Australia and New Zealand, said in a statement that the company was disappointed by the decision because it cast serious doubt on contractual arrangements across New Zealand. “While the implications of this decision are far-reaching, for now this decision only affects four drivers and delivery partners, and Uber and Uber Eats will continue to operate normally,” Foley said. Uber had previously appealed the lower court’s decision to the Court of Appeals. In dismissing Uber’s appeal, appeal court judges said whether a person qualifies as an employee “is of increasing importance in light of the increasing fragmentation, casualization and globalization of work and the workforce in New Zealand.” They defined the value of having employment status as “the gate that an employee must pass through to access legal minimum employment rights, such as minimum wage, minimum working hours, rest and meal breaks, holidays, parental leave, domestic violence leave, bereavement leave, and the ability to pursue personal grievances.” (Reporting by Lucy Craymer; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)