Hospitality recruitment app Supp calls gig-workers contractors. Some users say it leads to casual work without entitlements

Gig Workers in Australian Hospitality Face Entitlement Gaps Under Contractor Model

Wanderstayfinder.com – A growing number of hospitality professionals across Australia are questioning whether they are receiving proper workplace protections after being classified as independent contractors through a popular recruitment application. The platform, known as Supp, has become increasingly common in the sector, yet critics argue its employment model may be depriving workers of essential benefits including superannuation contributions.

How Supp Operates in the Market

Since its introduction in Melbourne during 2017, Supp has positioned itself as a digital jobs marketplace connecting hospitality venues with flexible workers. The application allows businesses to post available shifts with hourly rates, while workers can pick up ad-hoc employment opportunities through the platform. Founders Kate and Cameron Reid, who also operate Lune Croissanterie, established the company and maintain financial ownership despite stepping away from board responsibilities. The platform has grown substantially beyond its Australian origins, now operating in the United States as well. Company representatives state that approximately 15,000 venues and 200,000 workers utilize the service. Payment flows through the application, with Supp deducting a 12 percent service fee before distributing funds to workers. At financial year end, users receive payment advice and summaries through the system. A critical requirement for participation is that workers must hold their own Australian Business Number. Supp classifies these individuals as individual contractors rather than casual employees when they work through the platform.

The Contractor Classification Debate

Daniel McBurnie, a hospitality worker who began examining his entitlements in 2021, has become a vocal critic of the arrangement. He performed various roles through Supp including bartending, popcorn selling, front-of-house duties, and table waiting. Despite performing similar labour to traditional hospitality positions, McBurnie was engaged as an individual contractor rather than a casual employee across 15 separate companies. He reported receiving no superannuation payments for any shifts completed through the application. Furthermore, he noted that the app contains no built-in mechanism for businesses to collect superannuation information or for workers to provide their details.

Hospitality workers coming in to do a barista shift – they don’t have autonomy. They’re not setting their pay rate, they’re not setting their hours. They are reporting to a supervisor, they’re carrying out the tasks delegated to them.

The distinction between contractor and employee carries significant financial implications. Casual employees receive minimum pay rates, casual loading, penalty rates for unsocial hours, rest breaks, superannuation contributions, and protection against unfair dismissal. Employers also face additional obligations including record-keeping requirements. Under Australian Tax Office guidelines, independent contractors who receive the majority of their income from labour rather than business assets remain entitled to superannuation. However, the practical reality for many Supp users suggests this entitlement may not be consistently applied.

Legal Framework and Sham Contracting

The Fair Work Act prohibits misrepresenting employment relationships as independent contracting arrangements, a practice termed sham contracting. Large businesses face potential penalties reaching $546,000 for violations, while third parties involved in contraventions can also be held liable. Supp’s leadership has firmly rejected allegations of misrepresentation. Chief executive Jordan Murray stated the company denies any suggestions regarding improper working relationship arrangements through the platform.

Supp engages constructively with regulators and supports clear, workable standards for independent work on digital platforms. As the law evolves we will keep adapting the platform with it, including tools that help businesses meet obligations where they apply.

Co-founder Cameron Reid emphasized that Lune Croissanterie regularly uses Supp with confidence due to the company’s legal compliance reviews, regulatory engagement, and insurance coverage for both parties.

Expert Analysis of the Employment Relationship

Imogen Szumer, a senior associate at Maurice Blackburn, described Supp’s relationship classification as peculiar given the nature of the work performed. She noted that merely labeling workers as contractors does not automatically make that classification accurate.

Just because the website or the app is saying that it’s an individual contractor relationship, doesn’t mean that it is. How the parties describe the relationship is one factor, but it is not determinative. And that’s obviously important in the employment relationship, which is inherently an unequal one.

Szumer highlighted that courts and tribunals examine multiple factors when determining true employment status, including control over work, integration into the business, and whether the worker operates independently or under direction. The broader context includes similar movements to extend entitlements to gig workers in other sectors, particularly food delivery. McBurnie expressed concern that Supp’s model could enable widespread misclassification affecting hundreds of thousands of workers nationwide, potentially denying them workplace protections they would otherwise receive as casual employees. As regulatory scrutiny intensifies across the gig economy, the question of whether digital platforms are facilitating genuine independent contracting or circumventing traditional employment obligations remains central to ongoing debates about modern work arrangements in Australia.