Source: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/publications/research-papers/download/36-research-papers/13869-labour-rights-in-the-gig-economy-an-explainer
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:35:32+00:00

Document:
The gig economy has had a drastic impact on the nature of employment. The traditional paradigm of full-time, stable individual employment is being challenged by on-demand freelance contractor work. Consequently, certain protections and benefits that employees usually enjoy are not afforded to workers in the gig economy. This paper explains what the gig economy is, how it functions and the implications it has on labour rights. It also provides some information on the regulatory responses of other countries to the gig economy.
§ workers being classified as independent contractors.
Analysis shows that workers in the gig economy tend to have lower wages than employees. They also often miss out on a number of other benefits. Further, their classification as independent contractors has implications on their tax status and superannuation. The analysis suggests that the current superannuation guarantee system may need to be reworked, as it was designed to cater to individual full-time employees, and did not envisage a gig economy labour market.
Overseas, there have been a number of different approaches to labour rights and the classification of workers in the gig economy. In general, comparable jurisdictions such as New Zealand, Canada, and states in the United States of America adopt a similar approach to Australia in categorising workers as either employees or contractors. In the United Kingdom (UK), a third category, the 'worker', exists between the employee and contractor. The 'worker' has recently been the subject of legal proceedings discussed in greater detail below, involving businesses such as Uber and Deliveroo. Overall, it appears that the legal frameworks of comparable international jurisdictions are capable of regulating the gig economy. In terms of workers' rights, some cases suggest that gig economy workers are entitled to greater rights while in other cases they have been found to have fewer rights. At the time of writing, several related matters are underway in the courts overseas.
While the debate around the gig economy can be polarising, it is certain that the gig economy is disrupting traditional methods of doing business and does not look like it is going away. Some stakeholders are in favour of it, arguing that greater flexibility and choice is a positive result of technological innovation. Others have argued against it, claiming that the gig economy is essentially about the exploitation of workers and labour laws, as opposed to being about the development of new technologies. This has led to some workers missing out on benefits like security of income, accident insurance, paid leave and superannuation contributions.
§ workers fall under the classification of independent contractors and do not enjoy any employment protections or minimum standards.
In the Australian context, the issue has been polarising. Proponents of the gig economy advocate for the flexibility and freedom often associated with freelance or independent contract work. Support arises from the concept of choice, in that people may choose when and how often they undertake work. The structure of work can also be appealing; a customer needs a task to be completed, an entrepreneur has the skills to fulfil such a task. An online platform facilitates a virtual market place to bring the two together.
However, workers' rights groups have been quick to highlight the negative aspects of the gig economy.[footnote 3] Many of the benefits of permanent work, including security of income, accident insurance, superannuation and paid leave, are absent. 'Entrepreneurs' with un-specialised skills must often bid down the rate of pay in order to secure work. In turn, there is no limit as to how low fees can go. Minimum wage laws do not apply as the entrepreneur is not considered an employee of the platform. As such, he/she must work as an independent contractor, meaning under industrial law minimum pay and other conditions do not apply.
The image below shows the key stages of using the Deliveroo mobile application to order food.
Overall, the regulation of the gig economy sits largely within the federal jurisdiction. As yet, the federal government has not explicitly legislated with regard to the gig economy. Nor have states or territories. The Australian Tax Office (ATO) provides information on the differences between employees and contractors, which is helpful in indicating key differences between the two forms of work. This information is outlined in the Appendix below.
In 2017, the Senate established the Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers. Of particular importance for the Select Committee is the impact of technology on the future of work—it is therefore expected that the final report will address the gig economy in Australia. The Select Committee is due to report on or before 21 June 2018.[footnote 12] The establishment of the Select Committee reflects the fact that key employment laws, such as the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), were written before the advent of the gig economy. As such laws often do not define an 'employee',[footnote 13] the task of doing so has instead been undertaken by the courts.
In 2016, the Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources handed down the final report of the Victorian Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry and Insecure Work (the Report).[footnote 14] The Report runs to over 400 pages and makes 35 Recommendations for reform.
The Report goes on to state that Victoria's ability to regulate in this area is hampered by the Federal Government's Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth).[footnote 18] In that light, it recommends that Victoria advocates for clarification in the federal legislation. Meanwhile, the Report states that the courts have so far displayed flexibility in interpreting the validity of independent contract relationships. On that basis, the Report claims that further legislative reform is unnecessary.[footnote 19] The Report therefore seems to recommend that legislative reform is necessary at the Federal level, but not at the Victorian level.
This sentiment may be gaining traction. On 12 June 2018, the Fair Work Ombudsman commenced legal proceedings against food delivery service Foodora, alleging that the company was engaged in sham contracting which resulted in the underpayment of three workers.[footnote 23] The central issue will be whether the riders and drivers were employees or independent contractors. While that question will turn on the factual and practical relationship between Foodora and its riders and drivers, the result could have consequences for other gig economy businesses. Such consequences are envisaged by the Ombudsman, who sees the issue as being of 'significant public interest' and in need of going before a court for clarity.[footnote 24] Again, this desire to 'test' gig economy relationships in the courts reflects the fact that when drafted, employment laws did not envisage a gig-economy labour market.
In the FWC case, the driver in question had his service agreement with Uber terminated because of his failure to maintain a satisfactory driver rating. After bringing an unfair dismissal application he was found not to be an employee and thus had his application dismissed. The Deputy President of the FWC noted that a contract of employment is essentially a 'work–wages bargain', and 'in order to create such a contract there must be an obligation on the one side to perform the work or services under the contract and on the other side an obligation to pay for such work or services'.[footnote 32] In the case of Uber drivers, the services agreement outlined that Uber provided 'lead – generation services' and other ancillary services and not a 'work–wages bargain'.
Thus, the current paradigm in Australia is that those earning income in the gig economy are classified as independent contractors rather than employees—missing out on many of the rights held by employees.
The superannuation system is indeed based on the concept that, in the absence of compulsion, people would contribute less or not at all to their superannuation.
Thus, workers in the gig economy face lower super contributions—missing out the superannuation guarantee altogether—and, as a consequence, lower income levels in retirement. This trend, however, extends beyond the individual and has put pressure on Australia's social security system, impacting society as a whole.
§ income received from a business arranged or facilitated through a sharing economy platform.
For those who are already registered for GST and receive income through the provision of goods and services within the gig economy, GST needs to be accounted for in these earnings. This means that if an individual is registered for GST because he or she has a ride-sourcing enterprise, he or she must also account for GST on goods and services provided in any area of the gig or sharing economy, e.g. renting out a room or parking space.
GST can also be applicable to registered facilitators when they are provided wholly from Australia or through an Australian business operating in Australia. The ATO outlines that an individual is generally able to claim a GST credit for the GST paid on service fees or commissions. Further, GST is applicable when services are provided from outside Australia. Service providers must apply GST if they have not provided the facilitator with an ABN and thus not registered for GST.
For example, these tax provisions would apply to a Deliveroo rider-partner in the following ways. Any income one receives through work as a rider-partner is considered to be income by the ATO and must be declared on tax returns.[footnote 45] Rider-partners are also required to have an ABN, as they are classified as paid contractors. This also means rider-partners are responsible for paying their own tax and arranging their own superannuation contributions.[footnote 46] Deliveroo rider-partners are not required to register for GST if they earn less than $75,000 a year. This differentiates them from Uber drivers, for example, who need to register for GST even if they earn less than $75,000 a year.
In contrast to the Australian approach where work can be carried out by employees or independent contractors, other jurisdictions have taken a different approach. This is the case for the UK, which has introduced a third category of work. Meanwhile, in those jurisdictions which retain the two categories of work, the courts have interpreted gig economy contractual relationships differently. This section briefly examines categorisations of work in the UK, New Zealand, Canada and California.
The UK has taken a different approach to Australia. In classifying work, there are three overarching categories: employee, worker and independent contractor. Employees are entitled to the most rights and independent contractors the least. Workers are entitled to minimum wage, paid holidays, statutory sick leave, rest breaks and protection from unlawful discrimination.[footnote 47] They are, however, not entitled to unfair dismissal rights or statutory redundancy pay.[footnote 48] The status of gig economy workers generally is currently unclear. Two recent cases are discussed below, which led to different outcomes. At the time of writing, a recent UK Supreme Court decision has been handed down in which a plumber working in the gig economy was held to be entitled to workers' rights.[footnote 49] The cases below have been selected as the businesses involved also operate in Australia, under similar contractual relationships with workers.
In evidence given to the Tribunal, one plaintiff stated that during some work he was paid GBP5 per hour, whereas the minimum wage for drivers aged over 25 was then GBP7.20 per hour. This represents payment of 70 per cent of the minimum wage for work which the Court decided should attract the minimum wage.
In 2017, Uber's appeal of the Employment Tribunal decision was rejected.[footnote 60] At the time of writing, a further appeal had not yet been heard. Overall, the case suggests that current employment law in the UK is capable of regulating the gig economy—and that under the current laws, gig economy workers may be entitled to a wider range of rights.
The UK Central Arbitration Committee recently heard a similar case in which the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain sought recognition of rights to collective bargaining with Deliveroo on behalf of Deliveroo riders.[footnote 61] An integral part of the hearing concerned the employment status of riders, who claimed they were workers.[footnote 62] Deliveroo claimed that riders it engaged were instead 'suppliers' and as such were entitled to rights as independent contractors.[footnote 63] While the case is similar to the Uber case above, it differs crucially in that the statute in question was different. The nature of the relationship was therefore subject to slightly different questions of fact and law.
Overall, the Arbitration Committee found against the Union (and by extension the riders). The riders were not to be classified as workers under either of the two possible statutory definitions and so were not entitled to worker rights such as minimum wage, holiday pay or annual leave. A further claim is due to be heard in the Employment Tribunal in July 2018. The result of that claim will be significant, particularly given that the Tribunal recently found against Uber.
In 2017, a report commissioned by the UK Government was handed down. Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices (the 'Taylor Review') made 53 recommendations that aim to improve the labour market in the UK so that work is decent, fair and fulfilling for workers.[footnote 75] As the report addresses recent changes in the labour market, some of the recommendations are directly relevant to the gig economy.
While the Government has stated that intention, at the time of writing the process has moved to more consultation and it is unclear as to when or how the recommendations will be implemented. From the wording of the recommendations in the Taylor Review, it is also unclear as to whether the Uber and Deliveroo cases were considered. As detailed reasons for the recommendations in the Taylor Review are not given in the report, it is unclear why the 'dependent contractor' category is necessary, particularly given the Uber case's finding that the worker category was sufficiently defined to make a finding in that case.
New Zealand operates under the Australian approach in that there are two classifications of work: employee work and independent contractor work. Employees and contractors are defined according to the Employment Relations Act 2000 (NZ).[footnote 81] However, the definition is subject to 'a considerable overlay of Judge-made law'.[footnote 82] Prior to the 2017 election, the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill 2017 was defeated. The Bill sought to introduce a minimum wage for contractors. Meanwhile, the government has stated an intention to introduce statutory support and legal rights for ''dependent contractors' who are effectively workers under the control of an employer, but who do not receive the legal protections that are currently provided to employees under the law'.[footnote 83] At the time of writing, draft legislation outlining how this change might take effect has not been released.
The Court also stated that the traditional binary relationship between employer and employee has recently been challenged, due to innovation in both work and working relationships.[footnote 88] In the face of these changes, the Court also stated that each case should be assessed on its facts.[footnote 89] In this sense the Court adopted a similar approach to that of the Employment Tribunal in the Uber case referenced in the United Kingdom, above. Namely, that despite a seemingly independent contractual relationship being agreed by the parties in both cases, the practical reality of the working relationship gave rise to greater worker rights than those of independent contractors.
In January 2018, a matter was brought before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario. The plaintiff there sought to bring a class action against Uber, seeking a ruling that drivers of Uber are employees and as such are entitled to relevant employment law rights. The case was primarily concerned with how the dispute should be handled in arbitration. The case is relevant in that the Court stated that the working relationship between Uber and its drivers could be an employment relationship. Similarly it could be an independent contractor relationship. Here, the Court confirmed that a finding on that issue should be conducted by a 'fact-based determination' of the actual working relationship, as opposed to the terms of the written agreement between the parties.[footnote 96] The Court held that the matter should go to arbitration in the Netherlands (wherein the Uber entity with the power to arbitrate the dispute resides), and as such no finding was made on the nature of the working relationship.
The District Attorney of San Francisco has recently subpoenaed the employment records of Uber and another rideshare service, Lyft. The subpoenas have been issued in order to determine the accuracy of how the businesses classify their workers, and to confirm that workers are being provided the rights guaranteed under that classification.[footnote 100] At the time of writing, the case is ongoing.
Basis of payment: the worker is paid for a result achieved based on the quote they provided. A quote can be calculated using hourly rates or price per item to work out the total cost of the work.
· the worker provides all or most of the equipment, tools and other assets required to complete the work, but the business provides them with an allowance or reimburses them for the cost of the equipment, tools and other assets.
· the worker does not receive an allowance or reimbursement for the cost of this equipment, tools and other assets.
Commercial risks: the worker takes no commercial risks. The business is legally responsible for the work done by the worker and liable for the cost of rectifying any defect in the work.
Control over the work: the business has the right to direct the way in which the worker does their work.
Independence: the worker is not operating independently of the business. They work within and are considered part of the business.
Independence: the worker is operating their own business independently of the business. The worker performs services as specified in their contract or agreement and is free to accept or refuse additional work.
Source: Australian Taxation Office (2017) 'Difference between employees and contractors', ATO website.
671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59 (CanLII).
A. Stewart & J. Stanford (2017) '<href="#articleCitationDownloadContainer">Regulating work in the gig economy: What are the options?' in The Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 28, issue 2, pp. 420 – 437.
Aslam & Ors v Uber BV & Ors (minimum wage : paid leave : whistle-blowing) [footnote 2016] UKET 2202551/2015.
Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (2017) Superannuation and the Changing Nature of Work: Discussion Paper, ASFA Research and Resource Centre, September.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) Characteristics of Employment, Australia, August 2017, cat. no. 6333.0, Canberra, ABS.
Australian Taxation Office (2015) 'Working out if you have to pay super', ATO website.
Australian Taxation Office (2018) 'The sharing economy and tax', ATO website.
Bales, K., A. Bogg and T. Novitz (2018) ''Voice' and 'Choice' in Modern Working Practices: Problems With the Taylor Review', Industrial Law Journal47(1), pp. 46–75.
Belton v. Liberty Insurance Co. of Canada (2004), 2004 CanLII 6668 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 81 (C.A.).
Braiden v. La-Z-Boy Canada Ltd., 2008 ONCA 464 (CanLII).
Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [footnote 2005] NZSC 34, [footnote 2005] 3 NZLR 721, [footnote 2005] ERNZ 372.
Canada Revenue Agency (undated) 'Employee or Self-employed?', Canada Revenue Agency, RC4110(E) Rev. 17.
Davies, R. (2017) 'Uber loses appeal in UK employment rights case', The Guardian, 11 November.
Deliveroo Australia (2018) 'Apply', Deliveroo Website.
Deliveroo Australia (2018) 'Home', Deliveroo Website.
Dewhurst v CitySprint UK Ltd [footnote 2016] UKET 2202512/2016.
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, S222732 available at: (http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S222732.PDF ) (last visited Monday June 4, 2018).
Education and Employment References Committee (2017) Inquiry into Corporate Avoidance of the Fair Work Act, final report, Canberra, The Committee, September, p. 90.
Employment Relations Act 2000 (NZ).
Employment Standards Act 2000 (Can).
Etax Accountants (date unknown) 'Deliveroo tax help: A tax guide for Deliveroo rider-partners', Etax Accountants website.
Findlay, P. and P. Thompson (2017) 'Contemporary work: Its meanings and demands', Journal of Industrial Relations59(2) 122–138.
Fudge, J. (2017) 'The future of the standard employment relationship: Labour law, new institutional economics and old power resource theory', Journal of Industrial Relations 59(3) 374–392.
Hall, C. and W. Fussey (2018) 'Will employees and contractors survive in the gig economy?' New Zealand Law Society website, 29 March.
Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., <href="#_ftn17">2018 ONSC 718 (CanLII).
Hickey, S. (2016) 'Uber tribunal criticise 'fictions' and 'twisted language'', The Guardian, 29 October.
Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain (IGWB) and RooFoods Limited TA/ Deliveroo, Central Arbitration Committee 14 November 2017 (TUR1/985(2016).
Investopedia (2019) 'Gig Economy', Investopedia website.
Investopedia (2018) 'Sharing Economy', Investopedia website.
J. Kennedy et al (2017) Mapping the Melbourne Sharing Economy, Melbourne Networked Society Institute, the University of Melbourne, p. 37.
Kennedy, J., B. Nansen, J. Meese, R. Wilken, T. Kohn and M. Arnold (2017) Mapping the Melbourne Sharing Economy, Melbourne Networked Society Institute, University of Melbourne.
McDonald v OnTrack Infrastructure Ltd [footnote 2010] NZEmpC 132, [footnote 2010] ERNZ 223.
Montreal v. Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd., 1946 CanLII 353 (UK JCPC), [footnote 1947] 1 D.L.R. 161 (P.C.).
N. Dyrenfurth (2018) Super ideas: securing Australia's retirement income system, John Curtin Research Centre.
Office for National Statistics (2018) 'Analysis of real earnings and contributions to nominal earnings growth, Great Britain: May 2018', ONS website.
Online Tax Return (2017) 'Deliveroo Tax Guide', Online Tax Return Website.
Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [footnote 2017] NZEmpC 150.
Rawling, M. and E. Schofield-Georgson (2018) 'Industrial legislation in Australia', Journal of Industrial Relations 60(3) 378–396.
Somerville, H. (2018) 'San Francisco subpoenas Uber, Lyft on driver classification', Reuters, 30 May.
Transport Workers Union (2018) On-demand food delivery riders snapshot, TWU, Melbourne.
Uber v Aslam & Ors UKEAT/0056/17/DA, 20 November 2017.
Unions NSW (2016) Innovation of Exploitation - Busting the Airtasker Myth, Sydney.
UnionsACT (2015) Submission to the Treasury and Economic Development Directorate, 2015 ACT Taxi Innovation Review, July, Canberra, p. 4.
White, J. (2018) 'Uber and Lyft subpoenaed for employment records after landmark gig economy ruling', Independent, 29 May.
Wolters Kluwer (2018) 'Uber, the Gig Economy and Legislative Change', WK website.
Wright, C. F. (2018) 'Australian industrial relations in 2017', Journal of Industrial Relations60(3) 287–297.
Research Notes are produced by the Parliamentary Library's Research & Inquiries service. They provide analysis on selected components of new Bills and topical issues in response to, and in anticipation of, the needs of Members of the Victorian Parliament.
[footnote 1] Investopedia (2018) 'Sharing Economy', Investopedia website.
[footnote 2] Investopedia (2018) 'Gig Economy', Investopedia website.
[footnote 3] Unions NSW (2016) Innovation of Exploitation - Busting the Airtasker Myth, Sydney, Unions NSW.
[footnote 4] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) Characteristics of Employment, Australia, August 2017, cat. no. 6333.0, Canberra, ABS.
[footnote 6] Deliveroo Australia (2018) 'Home', Deliveroo website.
[footnote 7] Education and Employment References Committee (2017) Inquiry into Corporate Avoidance of the Fair Work Act, final report, Canberra, The Committee, September, p. 90.
[footnote 8] Deliveroo Australia (2018) 'Apply', Deliveroo website.
[footnote 9] Education and Employment References Committee (2017) op. cit. p. 90.
[footnote 10] Transport Workers Union (2018) On-demand food delivery riders snapshot, Melbourne, TWU.
[footnote 12] Parliament of Australia, 'Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers', Parliament of Australia website.
[footnote 13] For example, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) does not define 'employee'.
[footnote 14]Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (2016) Victorian Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry and Insecure Work: Final Report, Melbourne, DEDJTR, 31 August.
[footnote 15] Ibid., p. 30.
[footnote 16] ibid., pp. 34–36.
[footnote 17] ibid., p. 345.
[footnote 18] ibid., pp. 31–32; 346.
[footnote 19] ibid., p. 345.
[footnote 20] T. Carney and J. Stanford (2018) The Dimensions of Insecure Work: A Factbook, Manuka, The Australia Institute, May 29, p. 19.
[footnote 23] Fair Work Ombudsman (2018) '<href="#twitter">Fair Work Ombudsman commences legal action against Foodora', Australian Government, press release, 12 June.
[footnote 25] J. Kennedy et al. (2017) Mapping the Melbourne Sharing Economy, Melbourne Networked Society Institute, The University of Melbourne, p. 37.
[footnote 26] A. Stewart & J. Stanford (2017) '<href="#articleCitationDownloadContainer">Regulating work in the gig economy: What are the options?' in The Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 28, issue 2, pp. 420 – 437.
[footnote 27] J. Kennedy et al. (2017) op. cit. p. 37.
[footnote 28] ibid., p. 37.
[footnote 29] UnionsACT (2015) Submission to the Treasury and Economic Development Directorate, 2015 ACT Taxi Innovation Review, Canberra, Unions ACT, July, p. 4.
[footnote 30] Wolters Kluwer (2018) 'Uber, the Gig Economy and Legislative Change', WK website.
[footnote 31] For more detail on the differences between employees and independent contractors. please see Table 1 in the Appendix.
[footnote 32] Wolters Kluwer (2018) op. cit.
[footnote 33] The indicia of employment are set out in the case of Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16.
[footnote 34] Wolters Kluwer (2018) op. cit.
[footnote 36] N. Dyrenfurth (2018) Super ideas: securing Australia's retirement income system, John Curtin Research Centre, p. 13.
[footnote 37] ibid., p. 14.
[footnote 38] A. Craston, Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (2017) Superannuation and the Changing Nature of Work: Discussion Paper, Sydney, ASFA Research and Resource Centre, September.
[footnote 39] ibid., p. 17.
[footnote 40] ibid., p. 17.
[footnote 41] ibid., p. 17.
[footnote 42] Australian Taxation Office (2015) 'Working out if you have to pay super', ATO website.
[footnote 43] Australian Taxation Office (2018) 'The sharing economy and tax', ATO website.
[footnote 45] Online Tax Return (2017) 'Deliveroo Tax Guide', Online Tax Return Website.
[footnote 46] Etax Accountants (date unknown) 'Deliveroo tax help: A tax guide for Deliveroo rider-partners', Etax Accountants website.
[footnote 47] C. Hall and W. Fussey (2018) 'Will employees and contractors survive in the gig economy?' New Zealand Law Society website, 29 March.
[footnote 49] C. Pistas (2018) 'UK Supreme Court rules plumber in gig economy entitled to worker rights', Reuters, 13 June.
[footnote 50] Aslam & Ors v Uber BV & Ors (minimum wage : paid leave : whistle-blowing) [footnote 2016] UKET 2202551/2015. Upheld in Uber v Aslam & Ors UKEAT/0056/17/DA, 20 November 2017, at [footnote 7].
[footnote 53] Ibid., at [footnote 43] – [footnote 46].
[footnote 54] Ibid., at [footnote 51] – [footnote 53].
[footnote 55] Ibid., at [footnote 54].
[footnote 56] ibid, at [footnote 55].
[footnote 57] ibid, at [footnote 90].
[footnote 58] ibid, at [footnote 90].
[footnote 59] ibid, at [footnote 89].
[footnote 60] R. Davies (2017) 'Uber loses appeal in UK employment rights case', The Guardian, 11 November.
[footnote 61] Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain (IGWB) and RooFoods Limited TA/ Deliveroo, Central Arbitration Committee 14 November 2017 (TUR1/985(2016)).
[footnote 62] ibid, at [footnote 18].
[footnote 63] ibid, at [footnote 11]–[footnote 13].
[footnote 64] ibid, at [footnote 43].
[footnote 65] Ibid., at [footnote 56].
[footnote 66] Ibid., at [footnote 76].
[footnote 67] Ibid., at [footnote 67].
[footnote 68] Ibid., at [footnote 55].
[footnote 69] Ibid., at [footnote 76] and [footnote 84].
[footnote 70] Ibid., at [footnote 98]–[footnote 99].
[footnote 71] Ibid., at [footnote 98]–[footnote 99].
[footnote 72] Ibid., at [footnote 99].
[footnote 73] For example, part of the reasoning in the City Sprint case centred on a lack of evidence that couriers had successfully substituted in the past, and examples were raised in which requests to substitute work were rejected by the platform. See: Dewhurst v CitySprint UK Ltd [footnote 2016] UKET 2202512/2016.
[footnote 74] Office for National Statistics (2018) 'Analysis of real earnings and contributions to nominal earnings growth, Great Britain: May 2018', ONS website.
[footnote 75] M. Taylor, G. Marsh, D. Nicol and P. Broadbent (2017) 'Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices', UK Government Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, July.
[footnote 76] K. Bales, A. Bogg and T. Novitz (2018) ''Voice' and 'Choice' in Modern Working Practices: Problems With the Taylor Review', Industrial Law Journal 47(1), 46–75.
[footnote 77] ibid., p. 54.
[footnote 79] M. Taylor, G. Marsh, D. Nicol and P. Broadbent (2017) op. cit., p. 9.
[footnote 80] Ibid., p. 36.
[footnote 81] Employment Relations Act 2000 (NZ), ss 6, 69B.
[footnote 82] McDonald v OnTrack Infrastructure Ltd [footnote 2010] NZEmpC 132, [footnote 2010] ERNZ 223, at [footnote 51], cited in: Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [footnote 2017] NZEmpC 48 (11 May 2017), at [footnote 19].
[footnote 83] Labour (undated) 'Workplace Relations Policy', Labour website (accessed 24 May 2018).
[footnote 84] Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [footnote 2017] NZEmpC 150; see also Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [footnote 2005] NZSC 34, [footnote 2005] 3 NZLR 721, [footnote 2005] ERNZ 372.
[footnote 85] Ibid., at [footnote 61]–[footnote 85].
[footnote 86] Ibid., at [footnote 85].
[footnote 87] Ibid., at [footnote 87].
[footnote 88] Ibid., at [footnote 91].
[footnote 89] Ibid., at [footnote 31]–[footnote 39].
[footnote 90] Canada Revenue Agency (undated) 'Employee or Self-employed?', Government of Canada, RC4110(E) Rev. 17, p. 4. Note: while one case refers to a 'dependent contractor' as a standalone classification, there is no other mention of a dependent contractor in the case law or in the Employment Standards Act 2000 (Can). See: Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., <href="#_ftn17">2018 ONSC 718 (CanLII), at [footnote 47].
[footnote 91] Canada Revenue Agency (undated) 'Employee or Self-employed?', op. cit., p. 5.
[footnote 96] Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., op. cit. See also: Braiden v. La-Z-Boy Canada Ltd., 2008 ONCA 464 (CanLII); 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59 (CanLII); Belton v. Liberty Insurance Co. of Canada (2004), 2004 CanLII 6668 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 81 (C.A.); Montreal v. Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd., 1946 CanLII 353 (UK JCPC), [footnote 1947] 1 D.L.R. 161 (P.C.).
[footnote 97] Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, S222732 available at: (http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S222732.PDF ) (last visited Monday June 4, 2018), p. 7.
[footnote 99] M. Rawling and E. Schofield-Georgson (2018) 'Industrial legislation in Australia', Journal of Industrial Relations 60(3) p. 393; C. F. Wright (2018) 'Austrlian industrial relations in 2017', Journal of Industrial Relations60(3), p. 293; J. Fudge (2017) 'The future of the standard employment relationship: Labour law, new institutional economics and old power resource theory', Journal of Industrial Relations 59(3), p. 387; P. Findlay and P. Thompson (2017) 'Contemporary work: Its meanings and demands', Journal of Industrial Relations,59(2), p. 132.
[footnote 100] J. White (2018) 'Uber and Lyft subpoenaed for employment records after landmark gig economy ruling', Independent, 29 May; H. Somerville (2018) 'San Francisco subpoenas Uber, Lyft on driver classification', Reuters, 30 May.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.