Recent employment tribunal decisions have brought the spotlight back onto worker classification in the gig economy. A ruling on 7 November 2024 determined that Bolt drivers should be classified as workers, granting them essential employment rights such as holiday pay. In contrast, the case of Johnson v GT Gettaxi concluded that a black cab driver using a similar app was not a worker. These cases underscore the complexity in determining employment status for gig workers.

Mr Z Bandi & Others v Bolt Operations OÜ and Bolt Services UK Ltd

The tribunal’s ruling on Bolt drivers follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Uber v Aslam, where the Supreme Court determined that Uber drivers were workers.

Bolt claimed that although its drivers are not considered to be workers, they would receive holiday pay and the national living wage from August 2024. However, the claimant’s argued that the way this was calculated fell short of the current legal requirement.

This decision was based on the fact that Bolt has control over the drivers work and the terms and conditions that are applied to the driver’s relationship with the company. Furthermore, the tribunal highlighted the fact that “there is nothing in the relationship which demands, or even suggests agency” which lay to rest the claim that drivers operate as independent agents.

Currently, Bolt pays its drivers only for the time spent on trips. However, the tribunal ruled that drivers must also be compensated for the time they are logged into the app, provided they are not simultaneously using other private hire platforms.

The tribunal’s ruling mean that over 100,000 Bolt drivers will now be entitled to fundamental employment rights including statutory holiday pay and national minimum wage.

The financial implications of the ruling are profound, with the lawyers acting for the claimant’s estimating the compensation could exceed £200 million. Approximately 15,000 drivers are expected to qualify for backdated entitlements, including unpaid holiday pay and lost wages.

An additional hearing in the coming months will determine the exact amount of compensation owed to each driver.

Johnson v GT Gettaxi

In contrast, the recent case of Johnson v GT Gettaxi found that a driver utilising a black cab app was not classified as a worker. The claimant was a licensed taxi driver who used the app between 2015 and 2017. The app allows members of the public to order a black cab rather than hailing one on the street. In 2020 the claimant’s application to rejoin the app was denied and he claimed this was because he made a protected disclosure. This gave rise to the question of whether the driver was classified as a worker.

Despite some similarities to the Uber case, the tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent as they operated independently as taxi drivers.

The tribunal made this decision based on the following factors:

1. The Respondent did not apply a penalty for declined ride offers which suggested that the driver was acting independently.
2. There was no penalty for the driver if they deviated from the GPS route, which is in contrast to Uber.
3. The driver was not restricted if they chose to arrange direct trips with passengers.
4. The drivers could also operate as traditional black cab drivers or register with other apps. This is different to Uber drivers who are not allowed to solicit passengers in the same manner as a traditional taxi.

The future of worker rights in the gig economy

The Bolt case is a further development in the debate about worker classification in the gig economy. Whilst the Gettaxi case shows that not everyone working in the gig economy will be classed as a worker, the general direction of travel is that worker status will apply in more and more cases. As such, companies operating in this space face a challenging landscape:

• Financial Implications: Providing entitlements like minimum wage and holiday pay will increase operational costs, potentially impacting profitability.
• Reputational Risks: Failure to correctly classify workers could harm a company’s public image.

To navigate these changes, businesses must reassess their models and strategies, balancing compliance with worker protections while maintaining long-term growth and sustainability.

How we can help

For further information, or to discuss the issues raised within this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.