Two landmark rulings by the High Court, surrounding the definition of employees and contractors, have set the scene for a possible shake-up of work arrangements in the gig economy.
For Brazilian and former Deliveroo worker Diego Franco, Wednesday's High Court rulings are particularly important.
In May last year, the Fair Work Commission found there was no valid reason for Mr Franco's dismissal from the delivery company.
But Deliveroo launched an appeal against that decision, arguing Mr Franco could not claim unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act because he was a contractor and not an employee.
Awaiting the outcome of today's two High Court cases, the full bench of the Fair Work Commission deferred the appeal by the company, which is now set to recommence.
Judgements help to define the difference between an employee and a contractor
On Wednesday, the High Court delivered two judgements which it is hoped will clarify the test for determining just where the line between a contractor and an employee falls.
In the first case, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union convinced the court that a backpacker working for a labour-hire company, was an employee, despite an agreement he had signed which said he was a "self-employed contractor".
The majority of the High Court bench today found there was a distinction between a contractor conducting his own business and a worker serving the business of the employer, irrespective of any contracts signed.
The court found backpacker Daniel McCourt's promise to work for the company known as Construct and to be paid for that work was a core part of their employment relationship.
"Mr McCourt's relationship with Construct is rightly characterised as a contract of service rather than a contract for services," the judgement said.
But in a second case, the High Court found two truck drivers who worked for the same company for 30 years, were not employees.
The court heard the company, ZG Operations, had offered the drivers an opportunity to become contractors after they had been working as employees.
The pair bought their trucks and continued working for the company, and set up partnerships with their wives as part of the change.
But the men recently filed cases in the Federal Court under the Fair Work, Superannuation Guarantee and Long Service Acts, saying they were owed entitlements as employees.
The full bench of the Federal Court found that the substance and reality of the relationship meant they were employees.
But the High Court found that since the contracts were set up many years ago, in the late 1980s, it was the partnerships that provided the trucks and the services of the drivers to make deliveries.
The court found that the relationship was not one of employment.
While it is not yet known just how the two High Court rulings will affect future judgements — until more cases are tested in the courts — the Fair Work Commission has already indicated its eventual ruling on Mr Franco's dismissal from Deliveroo could have significance for the whole gig economy sector.
