header-logo header-logo

Uber ruling shakes up gig economy

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll