Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026
The Government has passed a new law which has considerable implications for contractors. This comes in response to the Supreme Court’s decision which found that Uber drivers were employees rather than independent contractors as argued by Uber.
Contractor vs Employee Status: A Gateway Test
While the previous approach to ascertaining status was an analysis of the ‘real nature of the relationship’, the new law introduces a 5-part gateway test, alongside existing employment law. An individual will be considered a contractor if:
1. A written contract exists, which specifies that they are a contractor or that they are not an employee,
2. They are free to work for another employer,
3. They are not required to work at specified times, on specified days, for minimum periods; or they otherwise have the ability to sub-contract the work.
4. The working relationship cannot be terminated if the worker declines work; and
5. They had a reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice before entering into the contract.
This change narrows the scope of the law on who is an employee and who is a contractor but more clearly defines the types of arrangements that don’t come under a usual employer-employee arrangement.
If an existing agreement satisfying the gateway test was in place before 21 February 2026, it will be accepted as a valid contractor agreement from that date. The law applies retrospectively no matter how old the agreement. The only exception is if the person had commenced proceedings to determine their status before 21 February 2026, so those Uber drivers held to be employees remain employees but that only applies to those particular people not every Uber driver.
If an existing agreement was in place before 21 February 2026 but does not satisfy the gateway test, the “real nature of the relationship” test as applied by the Employment Relations Authority and courts continues to apply.
For new agreements after 20 February 2026, if the gateway test is satisfied, they will be contractors. If the test is not satisfied the “real nature of the relationship” test will apply.
High Earners banned from unjustified dismissal claims
These law changes also significantly impact employees earning $200,000 or more per annum (including commission, bonuses, benefits from share schemes) They will no longer be able to bring a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal so they can be fired at will.
However, high income employees may still raise personal grievances on other existing grounds e.g. unjustified disadvantage or discrimination. The new law is unclear on how the unjustified disadvantage claims for lack of process might interact with the prohibition on an unjustified dismissal claim. Watch this space as this is likely to be contested.
While this amendment impacts new employees immediately, there is a 12-month transition period for existing employees earning $200,000 or more if they are in the same role or are restructured into a different role. Parties may agree to opt out of this protection and the threshold test.
Ban on remedies if employees contribute to the situation
The new law requires the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court to consider whether the employee has contributed to the situation. If the ERA or the Court considers the employee’s actions contributed to the problem and the employee’s actions amounted to serious misconduct neither the Authority, nor the Court may award any remedies, including lost wages or compensation e.g. for hurt and humiliation.
Neither the Authority, nor the Court may order reinstatement or compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, or injury to feelings in situations where the employee’s actions and behaviour contributed to the situation but not at the serious misconduct level. They can still order lost wages.
These are mandatory bans on those remedies not just a reduction by the extent of the contribution. The employee’s behaviour must contribute to the situation so there will likely be many arguments about any contribution.
New Workers: 30-Day Rule Repealed
Previously, the first 30 days of an employee’s employment (which was covered by collective agreement) were given the same terms and conditions as reflected in the Collective Employment Agreement. This was known as the “30-Day Rule”.
The Amendment Act has removed the 30-Day Rule, enabling parties to vary the terms and deviate from the Collective terms and conditions from the start of employment.
Notification to the Union
In relation to union membership, employers are no longer required to provide new employee details to their respective union.
Rainey Collins March 2026
