Uber Drivers are Employees – For Now

Uber has an unusual but highly successful business model. It has proved difficult to classify its drivers under employment law, both in New Zealand and in other countries where it operates.

Employees vs independent contractors

The issue is whether Uber’s drivers are employees or independent contractors. The legal status of Uber drivers has significant consequences.

Employees have a range of statutory entitlements, including annual leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, employer contributions to KiwiSaver, minimum wage levels, and the right to join a union and engage in collective bargaining with their employer.

Independent contractors have none of these rights. However, they are entitled to offset their expenses against their income for tax purposes. Employees cannot do this.

The New Zealand court system has been grappling with this issue for the last five years. In 2021, the Etū union filed proceedings in the Employment Court seeking a declaration that four Uber drivers were employees. The Employment Court ruled in the union’s favour, declaring that the drivers were employees. Uber appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal declined the appeal. Uber sought, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court released its decision on 17 November 2025.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court upheld the Employment Court’s decision that Uber drivers are employees. The court applied the well-established test for determining whether workers are employees set down in the Bryson case. Bryson considered the issue of whether crew members on ‘The Lord of the Rings’ film project were employees or independent contractors. The test derived from this case involves considering the intention of the parties (how they describe their arrangement), the degree of control the company has over the worker, the extent to which the worker is integrated into the company’s business and whether the worker can realistically be said to have their own business.

Uber’s contractual documentation avoids the terms employee and independent contractor altogether. Uber claimed that it merely provided a service to drivers and riders by matching them through its app. The Supreme Court found that this documentation did not reflect the true position and that, in reality, Uber was using its drivers to provide transport services to its customers.

The court found that Uber exerts a high degree of control over its drivers, which suggests they are employees. Uber monitors the location of its drivers while they are using the app. Uber operates a reward system for drivers that strongly encourages them to accept nearly all the trips offered to them. Once a driver accepts a trip, Uber specifies the route they must take and the price for the trip.

The court accepted that drivers are not integrated into Uber’s business in the traditional sense. They do not wear uniforms or have Uber branding on their vehicles. The court found, however, that the drivers are integrated into Uber’s business in the sense that they are the ‘face’ of Uber’s business. The drivers are the only individuals that customers have contact with when buying services from Uber.

The court also held that drivers do not, in reality, operate their own businesses. They have no opportunity to generate goodwill through a loyal customer base. They are not provided with customers’ contact details. They are prohibited from providing services to customers outside the Uber framework. In addition, customers are unable to select a specific driver. The app allocates a driver to them.

The Supreme Court is New Zealand’s highest court; therefore the court’s decision is the final say of the New Zealand courts on this issue. However, there is currently draft legislation before Parliament that, if enacted, will change the law relating to this issue.

The proposed ‘gateway test’

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill includes a proposed ‘gateway test.’

The Bill lists five criteria for the gateway test. If a worker’s contract meets all five criteria, then they will be deemed to be an independent contractor, and they will be unable to take legal action to be treated as an employee.

However, if the contract does not meet all five prerequisites, then their status may be decided by the courts using the tests applied in the Uber case.

The five elements of the proposed gateway test are currently:

1.    The contract defines the worker as an ‘independent contractor’

2.    The worker may work for other parties (except while working for the other party to the contract)

3.    The worker is not required to work set hours, or may subcontract their work to others

4.    The contract does not end if the worker refuses additional work, and

5.    The worker had the opportunity to take independent legal advice before signing the contract.

The Bill passed the select committee stage at the end of last year and has returned to Parliament for its second reading.

It is unknown when the Bill will become law, as this will depend on how the government chooses to prioritise the legislation currently before Parliament. However, when the Bill is passed, it will enable companies to be certain that their workers are independent contractors, provided their agreements with their workers meet the requirements of the gateway test.

In the meantime, however, the test for whether someone is an employee or a contractor is well established. If you need some help with sorting out your current work situation, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this article. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of this firm. Articles appearing in this newsletter may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source. Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2019. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: adrienne@adroite.co.nz. Ph: 029 286 3650 or 04 496 5513.