header-logo header-logo

11 November 2016 / Hester Jewitt
Issue: 7722 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Uber & out

nlj_7722_jewitt

Uber drivers have been ruled to be “workers” not self-employed contractors: Hester Jewitt reports

  • For businesses which rely on self-employed contractors, the Aslam decision gives pause for thought.

The wait is over. The employment tribunal in Aslam and ors v Uber BV and ors Case 2202551/2015 has decided that Uber drivers are “workers” not self-employed contractors and should be entitled to the national minimum wage, rest breaks, holiday pay and whistleblower protection.

Impact could be far-reaching

The impact of the Aslam decision is likely to be far-reaching, not just for Uber but the wider gig economy. Uber alone has about 40,000 drivers and other businesses operating similar business models could also be at risk of claims.

Following the decision, Deliveroo has received a request for union recognition and workers’ rights on behalf of its riders.

While Aslam is a first instance decision and so not binding on other tribunals; it raises the profile of false self-employment. Last month, the government launched an inquiry into the employment status of those working in the gig economy. Following

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll