Contractor or Employee? What the Uber Decision Signals for NZ Workplaces

The question of whether someone is a contractor or an employee has always mattered — but the recent Uber litigation has pushed this issue firmly into the spotlight for New Zealand businesses. The case is a useful reminder that labels in a contract do not decide a person’s legal status. What matters is the real nature of the relationship.

Why this matters now

Employment status affects access to core entitlements under New Zealand law — such as minimum wage, holidays, leave, and the ability to raise a personal grievance. Employment NZ is clear: the way a relationship functions in practice is what determines status, not simply what the written agreement calls it.

For organisations that rely on contractors, particularly those operating flexible or on-demand models, now is the time to be sure your arrangements are genuine.

A straight-forward summary of the Uber case

Here is a simple, factual outline of what happened in the litigation involving Uber drivers:

• A group of Uber drivers argued they were employees, not contractors.

• The Employment Court initially agreed that the real working relationship had the features of employment when drivers were logged into the app.

• Uber appealed, but in August 2024 the Court of Appeal upheld the core findings.

• The Court noted factors such as Uber’s control over fares, access to work, performance requirements, and the lack of real ability for drivers to operate an independent business while using the platform.

• Uber then took the matter to the Supreme Court.

• In November 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed Uber’s appeal. The decision confirmed that the drivers were employees for the periods they were connected to the Uber platform.

These findings came from the courts’ own reasoning — not commentary or summaries from others.

What this means for employers and HR teams

1. A contract label is not enough

If the relationship operates like employment, the law may treat it as employment, regardless of what the written agreement says.

2. Control and independence matter

MBIE guidance highlights key indicators that point toward employment — such as the degree of control, integration into the business, and whether the worker can build their own enterprise. These were central in the Uber case.

3. Review contractor arrangements

If you engage contractors who:

• work regular hours,

• rely on your organisation for tasks or customers,

• follow your processes, branding or direction,

• have little real ability to negotiate pricing or hire others,

… then it may be time to reassess whether the arrangement reflects what is actually happening.

4. Prepare for more scrutiny

With the gig-economy growing and the courts taking a closer look at the substance of working relationships, businesses should expect more challenges to contractor models.

5. Align your practices and documents

If you intend someone to be a genuine contractor, ensure the reality supports this:
business autonomy, ability to set pricing, freedom to subcontract, and the opportunity to build their own client base.

A practical takeaway

The Uber decision reinforces a simple principle: employment status is defined by the reality of the work, not the wording of the contract.
For businesses, the safest approach is to regularly test your arrangements against the criteria used by the courts and the guidance provided by Employment NZ.