Gig Economy Litigation Database
This database compiles and presents case law from around the world involving challenges to the status or rights of workers in the gig (or platform) economy. It includes litigation brought by individual workers, groups of workers and workers' organisations before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies against government or corporate actors. In addition to a summary of the facts, findings and outcome of each case, each database entry includes links to case documents and other publications of relevance for further reading.
The database aims to be a helpful resource for workers, workers' organisations, civil society and other actors. It provides a record of jurisprudence from which promising practices and successes, as well as shortcomings and lessons learned, can be drawn. It is informed by and forms part of BIICL's broader research on efforts to improve working conditions for, and promote the rights of, workers in the gig economy, in the context of BIICL's work on the GLP-Power project.
Cases
-
Suliman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (2019)
Australia
Was the claimant an employee of Rasier Pacific such that he was entitled to an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act?
Employment Relationship -
Gupta v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (2019)
Australia
(1) Was Uber Australia correctly identified as a respondent in the application?; and (2) was the claimant an "employee" of Uber Eats so as to be entitled to an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act?
Unfair Dismissal -
Case No 8 Sa 146/19 (2019)
Germany
Was the claimant an employee within the scope of section 611a(1) of the German Civil Code, or an independent entrepreneur?
Unfair Dismissal -
Uber South Africa Technology Services (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Public Service and Allied Workers (NUPSAW) (2018)
South Africa
(1) Were the claimants "employees" of Uber SA within the meaning of section 213 of the Labour Relations Act?
Unfair Dismissal -
Klooger v Foodora Australia Pty Ltd (2018)
Australia
(1) Whether the claimant was an employee or an independent contractor; and (2) whether the claimant had a right to an unfair dismissal remedy.
Unfair Dismissal -
Pallage v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (2018)
Australia
Was the claimant an employee of Rasier Pacific such that he was entitled to an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act?
Unfair Dismissal -
Kaseris v Rasier Pacific VOF (2017)
Australia
Was the claimant an employee of Rasier Pacific such that he was entitled to an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act?
Unfair Dismissal -
Commercial Drivers Welfare Association v Union of India (2017)
India
Were drivers working for Uber and Ola classified as "employees" so as to be entitled to benefits under various labour laws?
Employment Relationship