header-logo header-logo

28 October 2016
Issue: 7721 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Uber ruling shakes up gig economy

Uber drivers are “workers” within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employment tribunal has held in a case with far-reaching implications for the “gig economy”.

In Aslam v Uber, Case 2202551/2015 at the London Central employment tribunal this week, Judge Snelson held the claimants were “workers” and therefore entitled to 5.6 weeks of paid annual leave, sick pay, a maximum 48-hour working week, the national minimum wage and the protection of whistleblowing legislation.

Judge Snelson described Uber as a “modern business phenomenon”, founded in the USA in 2009 and now operating worldwide with 30,000 drivers in London and 40,000 in the UK as a whole. Customers contact drivers through an app. Uber takes 25 per cent of the driver’s fare for standard journeys, including 25 per cent of £5 cancellation fares where a customer cancels a trip more than five minutes after it has been accepted.

The claimants sought compensation for failure to pay the minimum wage and failure to provide paid leave. Two claimants complained of detrimental treatment on “whistle-blowing” grounds.

Lee Rogers, employment associate at Weightmans, said the judgment was “not only likely to have serious ramifications for Uber, but for many organisations who operate in the so called ‘gig economy’. 

“However, this is unlikely to be the end of the story—given what is at stake not just for Uber but for the industry as a whole, the decision is likely to be appealed. This decision will potentially open the floodgates for further claims, not just from Uber drivers but from thousands of others who work in the gig economy.

“It is crucial that businesses now watch this case closely over coming months, and in the meantime they should seek legal advice to ensure their contracts and policies around the engagement of staff are absolutely watertight, to avoid the risk of similar claims .”

Barrister Daniel Barnett, of Outer Temple Chambers, said: “Many Uber drivers complain they receive £300 after expenses for working 60 hour weeks.  

“This is £5 per hour, far below the £7.20 per hour national living wage for the over 25s which they would be entitled to if they were 'workers'. Now they are entitled to at least £7.20 per hour after expenses.  Uber's business model will need a major re-think."

As “workers” rather than “employees”, drivers would not be entitled to redundancy payments, unfair dismissal protection or other employee rights, Barnett said.

Issue: 7721 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll