HR Insights: Case Law Update | Supreme Court says Uber Drivers Are Employees

Supreme Court Decision Uber Drivers Decision - Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Inc [2025] NZSC 162

The  case and decision on November 17 2025 has attracted a lot of interest and reaffirms the legal tests for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor and is the culmination of a long running dispute that started in 2021. The lessons and takeaways are very instructive and potentially have huge implications for companies where workers may have been misclassified and may be entitled to minimum employment standards, including minimum wage and paid leave entitlements.

Decision

The Courts core finding was that the four Uber Drivers are employees under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 while using the app, meaning they are entitled to minimum entitlements, paid leave, and union rights.

The Court looked beyond the contract's wording, focusing on Uber's control, the inability for drivers to subcontract work, and stated the ‘real nature’ of the relationship between Uber and the workers is determinative rather than the labels used to categorise workers.

Uber exercised significant control over the four drivers through the fare setting system, the policing of their behaviour, the ratings system and protocols when logged into the app.

The drivers were integral to Uber's transport service, not running their own businesses as self-employed workers or independent operators.

The above factors outweighed ither indicators of contractor status, such as vehicle ownership and flexible hours

Key takeaways

• The traditional tests on intention, control, integration and the ‘own business’ or fundamental test have been reaffirmed.
• The above tests form part of the consideration of all relevant matters that must be considered to determine the ‘real nature’ of the relationship under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act as established by the Bryson v Three Foot Six Limited case in 2005.
• A few indicators of contractor status such as intention and flexible hours is not enough without considering other tests and circumstances to satisfy the legal tests that the worker is in business for their own account.

This decision may cause some tension in Government circles and complicate the introduction of the ‘Gateway Test’ Legislation intended to clarify the difference between an employee and an independent contractor.

For further guidance on this case, refer to our Case Law resources. For specialist advice, contact Michael at hradvice@businesscanterbury.org.nz

Or check-out our case law updates.