Classification as contract worker instead of employee proved fatal to his claim
A vending services worker lost his discrimination case after a tribunal ruled the corporate structure Coca-Cola required him to use stripped away his legal protections.
Nippun Kaura claimed he faced racial discrimination and was terminated without proper investigation when Coca-Cola accused him of stealing from vending machines in April 2020. But on February 3, 2026, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal dismissed key parts of his case before examining the substantive allegations, finding he was a contract worker rather than an employee under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.
The distinction proved fatal to his claim.
In 2016, Kaura's company Movers & Cleaners entered a vending services agreement with Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Australia. Kaura, the sole director of the company, was named as the sole provider of services, transporting inventory, cleaning and closing vending machines, collecting cash, and performing routine maintenance across Melbourne.
According to the tribunal, in a letter covering the agreement, a customer service manager at Coca-Cola stated Coca-Cola required Kaura to provide an Australian Company Number and Australian Business Number before a contract could be prepared and executed. The decision noted that Kaura was never given an option to enter the agreement in his individual capacity and only signed after providing the required business registration numbers.
This corporate arrangement became the legal stumbling block. Senior Member C. Powles found that the agreement was between the company and Coca-Cola, not between Kaura and Coca-Cola directly. Under the Equal Opportunity Act, employees and contract workers have different protections. The tribunal determined that someone cannot be both simultaneously.
The timing proved equally problematic for Kaura's claim based on employment activity, which involved raising concerns about employment entitlements. Before July 1, 2021, only employees could claim discrimination on this basis. Parliament extended the protection to contract workers through the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Act 2021, but without retrospective effect.
The tribunal rejected Kaura's argument that the amendment merely clarified existing law. Senior Member Powles wrote that "in the absence of any express statement that the new definition, as extended, would have retrospective effect to conduct undertaken before the amendment act came into effect, I am not satisfied there was any legislative intention for the new definition to apply to conduct undertaken before 1 July 2021."
The decision examined whether the corporate structure was a sham designed to disguise an employment relationship. Kaura argued the arrangement prevented him from working elsewhere, required him to obtain permission for holidays with 40 days notice, and subjected him to extensive control over uniforms, training, vehicle use, and work hours.
But the tribunal found these factors consistent with legitimate subcontracting arrangements. The agreement technically allowed the company to engage additional or substitute workers, though Kaura remained the sole service provider throughout the relationship. The tribunal concluded it could not substitute Kaura for his company as the contracting party simply because the business existed primarily to provide his labour to Coca-Cola.
The racial discrimination claims remain technically alive but were stripped of the employment activity allegations. The parties were directed to confer on next steps by February 20, 2026.
Those managing contingent workforces should note how contractual structures directly impact which workers can access discrimination protections. The decision also confirms a protection gap existed for contract workers who experienced discrimination before mid-2021, with no avenue for retrospective claims. The tribunal apologized for the delay in delivering reasons, noting over two years passed since the August 2023 hearing.
