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

Supp describes itself as a ‘jobs marketplace’, where hospitality businesses can advertise available shifts to potential workers at an hourly rate, and where workers can secure ad-hoc employment. Photograph: Blake Sharp-Wiggins/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Supp describes itself as a ‘jobs marketplace’, where hospitality businesses can advertise available shifts to potential workers at an hourly rate, and where workers can secure ad-hoc employment. Photograph: Blake Sharp-Wiggins/The Guardian Hospitality recruitment app Supp calls gig-workers contractors. Some users say it leads to casual work without entitlements Exclusive: Workers’ rights experts raise ‘alarm bells’ over app requiring ABNs for jobs they say lack worker autonomy Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast Concerns have been raised that workers using an increasingly popular Australian hospitality gig-work app may be missing out on entitlements such as superannuation by being hired as “independent contractors”, similar to delivery riders. Launched in Melbourne in 2017, Supp describes itself as a “jobs marketplace”, where hospitality businesses can advertise available shifts to potential workers at an hourly rate, and where workers can secure ad-hoc employment. It was created by Kate and Cameron Reid, the owners of Lune Croissanterie, who maintain a financial stake in the company but are no longer on its board. It has since expanded across Australia and the US, with the company claiming it was used by about 15,000 venues and 200,000 workers. Businesses pay workers through the app, with Supp adding a 12% surcharge as its service fee and sending workers payment advice and summaries at the end of the financial year. But Supp requires workers to have their own ABN, and describes them as individual contractors – not casual employees – to the hospitality businesses that hire them through the platform. Supp has rejected any suggestion that it has misrepresented the working relationship facilitated through the app. But concerns have been raised by a worker, Daniel McBurnie, who began investigating whether he was entitled to superannuation for shifts obtained through the app from 2021. Those shifts – including bartending, popcorn-selling, front-of-house and table-waiting – involved the same kinds of labour McBurnie said he had previously performed in hospitality. McBurnie said he was hired as an individual contractor – rather than a casual employee – for 15 different companies through Supp. He said he was never paid superannuation for any of those shifts, and that there was no mechanism within the app for businesses to collect that information or for him to provide it. “Hospitality workers coming in to do a barista shift – they don’t have autonomy,” McBurnie said. “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.” Casual employees have more workplace entitlements than independent contractors, including minimum rates of pay and casual loading, penalty rates, rest breaks, superannuation, and protection from unfair dismissal. There are also more obligations on employers, such as record-keeping requirements. independent contractors who are paid mainly for their labour are also entitled to receive superannuation, according to the Australian Tax Office. There have also been moves to provide other entitlements for gig-workers, such as in the food delivery sector. McBurnie was worried the app could enable widespread misclassification of casual workers as independent contractors, and that hundreds of thousands of workers may be missing out on workplace entitlements and protections as a result. Misrepresenting an employment relationship as an independent contracting relationship – known as “sham contracting” – is unlawful under the Fair Work Act and can attract penalties of up to $546,000 for large businesses. Third parties involved in contraventions can also be liable. Supp’s chief executive, Jordan Murray, said the company rejected and denied “any suggestions and/or allegations made or raised in relation to misrepresentation of the working relationship arranged through Supp” and “any sham contracting allegations.” “Supp engages constructively with regulators and supports clear, workable standards for independent work on digital platforms,” Murray said. “As the law evolves we will keep adapting the platform with it, including tools that help businesses meet obligations where they apply.” The app’s co-founder, Cameron Reid, said: “Lune regularly uses Supp, and is confident to do so due to Supp’s regular legal compliance reviews, its diligent work with regulators, and the insurance and support offered to both sides of the marketplace.” Imogen Szumer, a senior associate at law firm Maurice Blackburn, said the way Supp described the workplace relationship was “peculiar, looking at the type of work that this is”. “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 said. “​​We have strict rules in this country governing the employment relationship and which provide important protections for employees. Where you have the business or the app provider saying that their arrangement falls outside the remit of our employment laws, that deserves close scrutiny.” Szumer said if workers showed up to shifts at times set by the business, used its tools and equipment, were subject to its control and direction the entire time, including complying with its policies, procedures and dress standard, “looking at all the circumstances, a court might find that, in actuality, the hospitality business is employing these workers on a casual basis.” Three other Supp users who spoke to Guardian Australia said they had not received superannuation or other entitlements. A Melbourne bartender, Fred Siggins, said he had taken on bartending work at events with a company that used Supp as a payment platform for ad-hoc roles. He did not receive superannuation for those shifts, but said it had not concerned him as he had been in a position to negotiate a high rate for the work. Miranda Roop used Supp to pick up bartending and front-of-house shifts after moving to Australia in November. The work was no different to roles she obtained through word-of-mouth or other means, she said, but in other circumstances she was usually brought on as a casual employee. “Hospo work is largely the same everywhere you go – with similar procedures and tasks,” she said. Another worker, who spoke to the Guardian on condition that his name not be published, said he had used Supp to find extra shifts intermittently between 2022 and 2025, mainly bartending and occasionally as a barista or server. He had not been paid superannuation for those shifts and assumed he would have to pay it himself. McBurnie said the app was becoming “the new go-to” in hospitality. “You’ll see some venues that have used it literally thousands of times,” he said. But Pat O’Donnell, director of casino, pubs and clubs at the United Workers Union, said convenience for employers should not come at the expense of workers’ rights, security or fair treatment. “Alarm bells should ring whenever workers are told they need an ABN, or they must become a sole trader, to pick up a shift in a hospitality venue,” O’Donnell said. “United Workers Union is concerned by the growing gigification of hospitality work. Workers deserve secure jobs, fair pay and the protections that come with proper employment, not arrangements that shift risk on to workers to maximise flexibility for businesses.” McBurnie has called for the Fair Work Ombudsman to independently audit the platform and its use by businesses to source labour, saying many workers lacked the knowledge and confidence to take it on. “That is a more fair way to go about it rather than getting a really vulnerable section of the workforce to dispute their claims individually,” he said. The Fair Work Ombudsman refused to comment on Supp specifically, and encouraged workers with concerns to contact them or their union directly. Explore more on these topics Gig economy Hospitality industry news Share Reuse this content