Supp, a hospitality jobs marketplace launched in Melbourne in 2017, has expanded to serve approximately 15,000 venues and 200,000 workers across Australia and the US. The platform allows hospitality businesses to advertise shifts and workers to secure ad-hoc employment, with the company taking a 12% service fee on transactions.
Unlike traditional casual employment arrangements, Supp requires workers to possess their own Australian Business Number and classifies them as independent contractors rather than casual employees. This classification has prompted concerns from workers and legal experts about whether hospitality staff are being deprived of entitlements typically afforded to casual workers, including superannuation, minimum pay rates, casual loading, penalty rates, rest breaks, and unfair dismissal protections.
Daniel McBurnie, a worker who investigated his entitlements after performing various hospitality roles through the platform since 2021, found he was never paid superannuation across 15 different companies accessed via Supp. He noted that workers performing standard hospitality duties lacked autonomy over pay rates and hours, instead reporting to supervisors and following delegated tasks. Other workers interviewed reported similar experiences of not receiving superannuation payments through the app.
Legal experts have questioned whether Supp’s classification accurately reflects the actual working relationship. Imogen Szumer from Maurice Blackburn law firm stated that how parties describe a relationship is not determinative under employment law. She suggested courts could find workers are actually casual employees based on factors such as set shift times, use of employer equipment, and submission to employer control and direction.
Supp’s chief executive rejected allegations of misrepresentation or sham contracting, stating the company engages with regulators and adapts its platform as law evolves. Union representatives and worker advocates have called for independent auditing by the Fair Work Ombudsman, arguing that vulnerable workers lack the resources to individually dispute employment classification claims.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI