Decision brings long-running case on key aspects of workers status to an end
Almost since it started operating in the
Worker status continues to be a very fact-specific area of employment case law. Recent cases have examined contractual relationships from delivery services to referees and professional athletes. The three categories of relationship are independent contractor, worker and employee - see our article covering the distinctions on these roles (available from our website news page here) for more information.
Employers may wittingly or unwittingly mislabel a worker as a self-employed contractor. In turn, individuals may argue that they are in fact workers because worker status brings rights to paid holiday, rest breaks, and the National Minimum Wage, amongst other things. An employee has additional rights, for example in relation to unfair dismissal.
Case:
In the case of
However, when the case came before an employment tribunal, it determined that when it looked past the contractual relationship at the reality of the relationship between the drivers and
The
Going further, the court noted that when interpreting statutory provisions, the requirement was to give effect to the purpose of the legislation, which is ultimately to protect individuals who have little or no say over their pay and working conditions because they are subordinate to an employer exercising control over their work and are therefore vulnerable to abuse.
The court emphasised several aspects of the employment tribunal's findings which justified the conclusion that the claimants were working for
- Where a ride is booked through the app, it is
Uber that sets the fare and drivers are not permitted to charge more - it was thereforeUber who dictated how much drivers were paid for the work they do; -
The contract terms on which drivers performed their services are imposed by
Uber and drivers have no say in them - this did not indicate that the drivers were in business for themselves as otherwise they would be able to negotiate terms; - When a driver had logged into the app, the driver's choice about whether to accept jobs was controlled by Uber. The court and tribunal had highlighted one way that this was done was via monitoring the driver's rate of acceptance and cancellation of jobs and imposing what was, in effect, a penalty if too many trip requests were declined or cancelled;
Uber exercises significant control over the way in which drivers deliver their services, such as by the use of a rating system that may lead to warnings and even termination of the driver. In effect, this gaveUber rights to impose disciplinary sanctions on the drivers; andUber restricted communications between passengers and the driver to the absolute minimum required to perform a particular ride and took steps to prevent drivers from establishing any relationship with a passenger which could exist beyond an individual ride. This further undermined opportunities for drivers to operate as an independent business and the argument that the driver entered into a separate contract with each passenger.
The court noted that drivers were therefore in a position of subordination and depended on the app and
Another key decision from the court was that it upheld the tribunal's conclusion that drivers were working for
Comment
The decision of the
Of primary importance is the clear assertion that the first obligation on courts and tribunals in cases such as these is to consider the employment status of an individual within the meaning of legislation based on the actual working relationship between the parties. Although the written contractual terms set out between the parties remain important, courts and tribunals have significant discretion to ignore or disapply terms and conditions stated in contractual documents if they find that these do not represent the reality of the working relationship or the intentions of the parties.
Although the decision of the court in this case carries significance, it has ultimately underlined the widely understood point that worker status cases will ultimately turn on the facts of their case. This has already been well established, even within seemingly similar industries where individuals have been found to be independent contractors or workers within parcel and food delivery courier services.
As for the impact on
Originally Published by
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
LS2 3AG
Tel: 0113 244 6100
Fax: 0113 244 6101
E-mail: elinor.gilles@wrigleys.co.uk
URL: www.wrigleys.co.uk
© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source