It follows a $130 million class action settlement with Uber drivers in the United States, in which the company agreed to pay out 385,000 drivers in exchange for not being considered "employees".

Uber, which is worth about $80 billion, refers to its drivers as "driver partners" and says they are independent contractors and therefore not entitled to benefits such as superannuation or overtime.

Dr Michael Rawling, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Technology Sydney, said Uber drivers could be considered employees under Australian law if a court applied the "multi-factor" test, which takes into account the whole relationship between worker and employer.

"If the courts are mindful of taking that approach, which they have done previously, then there's an argument that Uber workers are employees," he said.

The multi-factor test is used by courts to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor, and goes beyond documentation.

According to the Fair Work Ombudsman, a person is typically considered a contractor if they control their own working times and how and where they work.

In contrast, an employee is typically paid regularly and is subject to controls on how and where their work is performed.

Josh Bornstein, a principal at law firm Maurice Blackburn, said the settlement in the US would be disappointing for people wanting Uber to take more responsibility for its drivers.

"It appears that Uber has decided to reach commercial settlement to remove the threat of drivers establishing that they are employees," he said.

"In Uber's world, $100 million is probably a cheap settlement and the people who brought the case have accepted it. Whether there will be any flow-on effects in other parts of the world is unclear."

He said he did not believe there was a push for legal action here.

"Ultimately its a question of whether there is sufficient interest amongst any group of workers or their union in running a test case," he said.

"With both cab drivers and Uber drivers, I'm not aware that they are clamouring to be classified as employees although they share one thing in common: they are both badly paid."

Thai Nguyen, an Uber driver based in Melbourne, said he believed drivers were becoming increasingly frustrated with the company and there was growing momentum for action.

"People don't like feeling like they have no control, and this is what's happening at the moment," he said.

"So if there's a knowledgeable lawyer out there who can lead a class action, a lot of people will be on board."

Mr Nguyen said he believed it was the control Uber had over drivers that made him feel like he was more than just "partner".

"Uber controls everything, except whether or not I drive. The moment I decide to drive, I'm on their platform, taking passengers they control via the riders' app, at rates they dictate, behaving the way they 'recommend'," he said. "They have full control."

The class action in the US was brought against the company by drivers in California and Massachusetts.

The settlement does not limit future claims, meaning any US court could still deem Uber drivers as employees.