Taxi Driver May Not Always be an Employee
Thursday 6 February 2014 @ 11.49 a.m. | Industrial Law
In the case of Voros v Dick [2013] FWCFB 9339, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission has found that a taxi driver who worked for the same taxi owner for sixteen years was not an employee of the owner.
The Commission determined that the relationship between the two men did not amount to an employment contract as such a contract is essentially a work-wages bargain that was not present here.
Mr Dick had been driving taxis for Mr Voros for over sixteen years. The agreement between the two men was to share the takings from the taxi. When Mr Dick paid for fuel, he would claim the money from Mr Voros. Mr Voros also ensured that the taxi was properly insured and registered and bore the costs of maintaining and repairing the taxi. Mr Voros claims that this relationship was one of bailment; a situation in which one person transfers their property to another for their use, but retain legal title over it. Mr Voros argued that he had no control over Mr Dick’s actions and Mr Dick was free to perform as much or as little work as he saw fit. Mr Dick was never paid a fixed wage and in fact, it was Mr Dick who would pay a portion of his earnings to Mr Voros.
The Commission found that the fundamental elements of an employment contract simply did not exist. The Commission found that in the relationship between the two men, Mr Dick was not required to perform work for the benefit of Mr Voros. The Commission noted that it is possible for a taxi driver to be employed by the owner of the taxi, but that such an arrangement would have to be significantly different to what was presented in this case.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
