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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll