1. The "Flexibility vs. Rights" Binary is False
The argument that "if you become an employee, you must work fixed shifts" is a corporate narrative, not a legal reality.
- The UK Precedent (Uber BV v Aslam): When the UK Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers were "workers" (a category entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay), Uber did not introduce forced shifts or rosters. Drivers retained the ability to log in and out at will. Uber simply adapted its backend to calculate minimum payments and accrue holiday pay based on the time worked. The "freedom" to work when you want remained intact; the cost of that labor just increased for Uber.
- Australian "Casual" Employment: Australian employment law already has a specific category for this exact scenario: Casual Employment. A casual employee is defined by the absence of a firm advance commitment to ongoing work—meaning they can work irregular hours and refuse shifts. If the Weddall case succeeds in proving drivers are employees, they would likely fall into this "casual" category, retaining their flexibility while gaining rights like Superannuation and the casual loading (currently 25%) to cover the lack of sick/annual leave.
2. Status of Weddall v Rasier Pacific (VID427/2021)
Currently active at trial in February 2026, this case is a completely separate from the Fair Work Commission matters which operate under the new "Closing Loopholes" legislation.
- The Difference: The Weddall case in the Federal Court is a "test case" arguing that under existing common law (not just the new legislation), drivers have always been employees.
- The Stakes: If Weddall wins, it exposes Uber to six years of back-pay for Superannuation and underpayments for thousands of drivers. This is why the "fear campaign" is so aggressive—the financial liability for the past is massive, whereas the new legislation excludes previous wrongdoings.
3. Why the "Shift" Threat Persists
If flexibility is legally possible with employment status, why does the threat of "rosters" keep coming up?
- It is a Business Choice, Not a Legal One: If Uber were to introduce shifts after an adverse ruling, it would be a commercial decision to control their new costs, not a legal requirement imposed by the court. They would be choosing to restrict drivers to protect the billions of dollars they extract from Australia every year, not because the law forces them to.
- The "Control" Paradox: Uber argues they don't "control" drivers (to avoid being employers), yet they threaten that if they become employers, they will suddenly need to exercise total control (rosters). As the UK courts found, this logic is flawed; the algorithm already exerts significant control, and recognizing that doesn't require moving to a 9-to-5 factory roster model.
Summary
The Weddall case challenges the core business model by asserting that flexibility and employment rights are not mutually exclusive. The history of Australian casual work and the UK Aslam ruling proves that drivers can have rights without losing their freedom to drive when they choose.
Here is a video featuring Debra Weddall herself, discussing the regulatory challenges and the reality of the driver experience, which cuts through the corporate narrative.
This video is highly relevant as it features the lead applicant in the Weddall case (VID427/2021) articulating the specific arguments regarding driver rights and control that are central to the current Federal Court trial.