Foodora hit with sham contracting court action

This case is likly to serve as a benchmark for all gig economy operators that think they can get away with exploiting workers using a smile, clever apps and some trendy name.

Members have been asking me, "Well why only Foodore? Why not all gig operators at once?".

Good question! The short answer, that's unfortuantly how the legal system work. Each case/operator case has it's own unique set of arguments. But rest assured, this case is likly to serve as a big red flag for all.

One wage thive at a time!

Ultimately, it is the job of our governments to put the proper laws in place, ensuring such working conditions are properly framed and workers are protected (including their super guarantees) just like any other worker would.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/wor...n/news-story/278a1aa53cc5004474eb5a6aef28f4f0

 

The challenge to Foodaro in the FWC statement of claim is identical to my request for a private ruling to the ATO wbich they failed to make.

 

Important to note it is the FWO that takes Foodora to court. Not the FWC.

They are two separate bodies. One is a commision the other is an independent ombudsmen (investigative body).

The Foodora investigation started well before RSDU's initiated Uber investigation.

Foodora is an easy case to win. Workers need to carry company logos. It is a very simlar case to the Holy & Vabu case and very likly to be treated accordingly in court.

These are both classic shame contracting cases. The legal language and course of events are quite common and quite expected by legal profesionals working on sham contracting cases.