Uber loses in the Supreme Court: drivers are workers, not self-employed
On 19 February 2021 the Supreme Court upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision in the Uber BV v Aslam & Others case. It was held that Uber drivers are ‘workers’ and not self-employed.
The court considered several elements in its judgment:
- Uber determines the fare, which means they decide how much drivers may earn;
- Uber determines the contractual terms, without any drivers say in them;
- Uber controls ride requests and may penalise drivers if they decline too many rides; and
- Uber monitors driver service levels through their star rating system and has the ability to discipline drivers and even terminate the contract if their level of service does not improve.
As a result, Uber’s appeal stating that it was an intermediary was dismissed. Taking the above into account, the court held that the documentation between the parties did not match with the reality of the work. Instead, it was decided that drivers were working for Uber and are therefore classed as ‘workers’. It was determined that Uber’s drivers are working whenever they are logged on to the app, whether or not they have a passenger.
What does this mean for employers?
The significance of being classed as a worker is that it means Uber drivers are entitled to claim a minimum wage based upon their ‘working day’ (whenever they are logged on to the app). This leaves Uber vulnerable to employment claims from its workers as they are able to claim up to 2 years’ backpay or £25,000 (whichever is larger) in an employment tribunal.
The workers are also able to claim paid annual leave and will have whistleblowing and other rights. It is important to note however, they do not have ‘employee’ rights such as the right to a redundancy payment or to claim unfair dismissal.
This case should remind employers that a tribunal may find that you are not bound by that language of your documentation. The tribunal will look at all the facts of the case when determining worker status and rights. Our employment team regularly advise and review contracts for employers of all sizes. Please contact us if you would to discuss an audit of contractual documentation for your organisation.
This reflects the law at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought as appropriate in relation to a particular matter.
FREE: Legal Insights and Event News
Keep you, your family and / or business up to date on how the law affects you, by subscribing to one of our legal insights.
Subscribe for free Legal Insights
& Event updates
A claim was brought against Addison Lee by employees claiming that drivers were ‘workers’ under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
This case should be seen as a reminder of the potential for automatic unfair dismissal claims if an employee refuses to work due to a perceived risk.
Can a man on Shared Parental Leave use a woman on Adoption Leave as a comparator in a sex discrimination claim?
Top Legal Insights
Award winning legal advice
We are solicitors in Camberley, Wokingham and London. In 2019, Herrington Carmichael won ‘Property Law Firm of the Year’ at the Thames Valley Business Magazines Property Awards, ‘Best Medium Sized Business’ at the Surrey Heath Business Awards and we were named IR Global’s ‘Member of the Year’. We are ranked as a Leading Firm 2020 by Legal 500 and Alistair McArthur is ranked in Chambers 2020.