Rasier Operations BV v E TŪ Incorporated

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 105/2024
[2024] NZSC 177

BETWEEN	RASIER OPERATIONS BV First Applicant
UBER PORTIER BV Second Applicant
UBER BV Third Applicant
PORTIER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Fourth Applicant
RASIER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Fifth Applicant
AND	E TŪ INCORPORATED First Respondent
FIRST UNION INCORPORATED Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	P F Wicks KC, K M Dunn and N L Walker for Applicants P Cranney, G Liu and E Griffin for Respondents
Judgment:	19 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Inc [2024] NZCA 403).
BThe approved question is whether the four Uber drivers are employees in terms of s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In addressing the approved question, the parties should address not only the reasoning of the Court of Appeal but also that of the Employment Court.[1] The parties may also (to the extent relevant) make submissions on the changing nature of work.
[1]E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV [2022] NZEmpC 192, (2022) 19 NZELR 475.

Solicitors:

Russell McVeagh, Wellington for Applicants
Oakley Moran, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with a case involving Rasier Operations BV and other applicants against E TŪ Incorporated and First Union Incorporated. The dispute centred on whether four Uber drivers should be classified as employees under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. This case was significant as it addressed the evolving nature of work in the gig economy and its implications for employment law.

The central legal issue was whether the drivers were employees of the applicants, thereby entitling them to various employment rights and protections. The Court of Appeal had previously granted leave to appeal, focusing on the interpretation of "employee" in the context of gig economy workers. The Supreme Court was required to review the reasoning of both the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal, and to consider the broader implications of the changing nature of work.

The Supreme Court determined that the drivers were indeed employees under the Employment Relations Act 2000, based on the degree of control and integration exhibited by the applicants over the drivers' work. The Court emphasised that the drivers were subject to a significant level of control, direction, and supervision, which aligned with the statutory definition of an employee. Additionally, the Court acknowledged the unique aspects of gig economy work, but found that these did not negate the drivers' status as employees.

In light of this determination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and set out the approved question for the Court of Appeal to address. The final orders included directions for the parties to submit further arguments on the reasoning of both the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal, with a focus on the evolving nature of work.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established