Amita Gupta v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd; Uber Australia Pty Ltd T/A Uber Eats

Amita Gupta sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Portier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Uber Eats, in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant alleged that she was dismissed from her role as a food delivery driver. The central legal issues revolved around the proper naming of respondents in the application, whether the applicant was an employee of Uber, and if she had indeed been dismissed. The Court considered prior decisions concerning Uber's business model, which involved a complex interplay between various legal frameworks, including the Independent Contractors Act 2006 and GST legislation.

The Court examined the nature of the relationship between the applicant and Uber, applying a multifactorial test. It found that, although one of the respondents was incorrectly named, this did not critically affect the outcome due to other findings. The Court held that, on balance, the applicant was not an employee of Uber. The application was dismissed due to a jurisdictional objection, as the applicant did not meet the criteria of being an employee under the relevant legislation. This conclusion was based on the nuanced interpretation of the legal relationship between the applicant and the entities involved.