We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
19 December 2018
In June 2018 the work health and safety legislation was accurately predicted as an area to watch for significant legal developments in the near future (for further details please see "Got the gig? Worker classification in gig economy heats up").
This forecast manifested in the Fair Work Commission's decision in Klooger v Foodora Australia, with the commission finding that the applicant had been both an employee of the food-delivery service (now in administration) and that he had been unfairly dismissed.
As recently noted by the Australian HR Institute, Commissioner Cambridge found that Klooger, who had apparently been engaged under the contractor model (commonly found in gig economy platforms), was an employee with all associated rights, including access to the Fair Work Act's unfair dismissal provisions.
The Klooger decision will undoubtedly be the subject of considerable analysis as the developing gig economy and employment and industrial-based framework (and claims arising from it) force employers to ask what employment in Australia will look like in 2019 and beyond.
One aspect that risks being lost among the post-Klooger noise is the potential for engagement structures (like those adopted by Foodora) to allow companies of this type to minimise or entirely avoid the obligations that they might otherwise face under state and federal work health and safety legislation. In Klooger, Cambridge was keenly aware of the dark road which such a course could lead to if left unchecked:
Contracting and contracting out of work, are legitimate practices which are essential components of business and commercial activity in a modern industrialised economy. However, if the machinery that facilitates contracting out also provides considerable potential for the lowering, avoidance, and/or obfuscation of legal rights, responsibilities, or statutory and regulatory standards, as a matter of public interest, these arrangements should be subject to stringent scrutiny.
At first it would seem absurd to suggest that the quasi-commercial engagements proliferated by the gig economy could introduce a potential loophole to the obligations of a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) under work health and safety legislation.
In Australian jurisdictions which have adopted harmonised work health and safety laws (so not Victoria or Western Australia), it is clear that the legislation is designed to capture working relationships more broadly than the traditional concept of employment. The obligations placed on PCBUs ensure that the health and safety of workers covers not just employees, but also contractor and subcontractor relationships.
However, as seems to be increasingly common, the rapid pace of modern enterprise facilitated by technological platforms appears poised to overwhelm the legislative protections designed to shield workers from risk, if proper measures are not put in place. This risk has already been identified by a Senate Committee enquiry into the future of work and workers in Australia.
Using Airtasker as an example, the committee was presented with the practical scenario of the gig platform enabling people to work in potentially dangerous industries without proper licensing. The committee noted that given "that the Airtasker platform includes electrical, plumbing and construction work, among other types of work, lack of licensing and appropriate regulation is of significant concern".
When questioned by the committee regarding Airtasker's approach towards work health and safety matters, the response from CEO Tim Fung appears to create the exact kind of distance between the platform and those engaged to perform work through it:
if the environment provided for that person to work in was unsafe, then a lot of the responsibility would lie with the person who procured the work. In relation to that, there are different levels of insurance that are provided, such as home and contents insurance. Some of them provide cover for some of these trades; some of them don't provide cover for these kinds of trades.
The above indicates the possibility that (at least) the concept of a PCBU should be carefully considered in the fresh context of an entity which provides a platform through which workers are engaged, despite having no direct connection to or substantive interest in the work that is performed.
Gig economy platforms may rally against the obligations that are otherwise imposed on traditional PCBUs under work health and safety legislation; however, these enterprises should ultimately ask one important question: what is there to be gained from this approach?
In a society which increasingly regards the health and safety of workers as a key priority, any perceived attempt to avoid such duties will likely attract significant criticism.
According to Cambridge:
if as part of any analysis involving the correct characterisation that should be given to a particular relationship, an apparent violation of the law… as a matter of public interest, any characterisation of the relationship which would avoid or minimise the likelihood of such violation should be preferred.
It is clear from the commissioner's comments that an approach to work health and safety which actively seeks to circumvent such obligations may lead courts and tribunals to more willingly characterise engagement models that are used by gig economy platforms as more traditional employment relationships, to ensure that such obligations clearly apply, leading to even more headaches of the Klooger type.
Foodora has until 7 December 2018 to appeal the commissioner's first-instance decision.
For further information on this topic please contact Aaron Goonrey or Adam Battagello at Lander & Rogers by telephone (+61 2 8020 7700) or email (email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org). The Lander & Rogers website can be accessed at www.landers.com.au.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.