Uber Loses Landmark UK Case - Over Giving Driver Min Wage, Holidays & Breaks

The Wolverine

So in the UK drivers backed by Trades Union Congress (TUC) brought a case against Uber saying they are in effect actual emoloyees of Uber and should get min wage, breaks and holidays.

Uber claimed they are self employed and should look after their own finances.

Today the Central London Employment Tribunal sided with the drivers

Employment tribunal judges were scathing of Uber's claims that its drivers are self-employed, even quoting from Shakespeare tragedy Hamlet to underline their dismissal of the private hire firm's arguments.

The firm had claimed its workers are their own bosses, with freedom to work as they choose, rather than being employed workers.

But the judges found otherwise, ruling the two drivers who brought the test case were employees and entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay.

In his ruling, judge Anthony Snelson said the panel had been struck by the 'remarkable lengths to which Uber has gone to compel agreement with its - perhaps we should say its lawyers' - description of itself and with its analysis of the legal relationship between the two companies, the drivers and the passengers.'

The panel accused Uber of trying to bamboozle drivers and their passengers.

The judge said that any company with the 'function of carrying people in motor cars' from one place to another, that operates as a private hire company but requires its drivers and their passengers to agree otherwise - while using 'fictions, twisted language and even brand new terminology' in its terms for workers - 'merits, we think, a degree of scepticism'.

Judge Snelson said: 'Reflecting on the respondents' general case, and on the grimly loyal evidence of (Uber regional general manager) Jo Bertram in particular, we cannot help being reminded of Queen Gertrude's most celebrated line, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3882476/Uber-loses-landmark-court-drivers-minimum-wage-offer-paid-holiday.html#article-3882476

What do people think? Do Uber charge the actual fees so are they not be facto the employer despite the claims they are making?

suicide_circus

Uber is entirely dependent on the labour of the drivers for their business. They tell drivers where to go and when. That sounds a lot like able employer to me.

The difference between a contract of service and a contract for services can be very fine. Have seen some real head scratchers go either way in different forums, social welfare appeals, EATs, standard employee PI claims etc.

What annoyed me about the decision was the Judge using any line with "methinks" in it. Apart from that, it would be hard to analyse the matter without a lot more info.

20Cent

Good that this has happened. This "sharing economy " model is driving down standards, quality and pay.

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference between a contract of service and a contract for services can be very fine. Have seen some real head scratchers go either way in different forums, social welfare appeals, EATs, standard employee PI claims etc.

What annoyed me about the decision was the Judge using any line with "methinks" in it. Apart from that, it would be hard to analyse the matter without a lot more info.

The full judgment is here: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/aslam-and-farrar-v-uber-reasons-20161028.pdf

The key reasons why the tribunal considered Uber drivers as employees are here: https://imgur.com/a/q7iPo

Edit - summary of the key reasons:

1. Uber has sole and absolute discretion to accept or decline bookings
2. Uber interviews and recruits drivers
3. Uber controls key information – passenger contact details and destination in particular. Drivers can’t access such information and don't even know where they are going until the trip starts.
4. Uber requires drivers to accept trips assigned to them
5. Uber sets the default route
6. Uber fixes the fare and drivers can’t negotiate a higher fare or other terms with passengers (as an independent contractor would be able to)
7. Uber imposes fixed conditions such as the type of vehicle that drivers must use and how drivers do their work
8. Uber subjects drivers to performance management and disciplinary procedures
9. Uber determines issues such as rebates without involving the driver
10. The discontinued guaranteed earnings scheme (fixed pay being a characteristic of employees)
11. Uber takes on risk of loss such as in the case of fraudulent passengers
12. Uber (not the drivers) handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about drivers
13. Uber can amend the drivers’ terms unilaterally
14. Forbidding drivers from contacting passengers after rides (someone running a business would normally be able to contact his clients)
15. Using terms like "on-duty" and "off-duty" and referring to "our drivers" and "our vehicles"

That was a comment on reddit

Sounds pretty solid. Any bits in particular you disagree with?

The Backwards Man

20Cent wrote: »

Good that this has happened. This "sharing economy " model is driving down standards, quality and pay.

The 'sharing your income with an opportunistic middleman that gouges sectors where the operators are not as likely to be as tech savvy economy' model as I like to call it.

For Forks Sake

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The 'sharing your income with an opportunistic middleman that gouges sectors where the operators are not as likely to be as tech savvy economy' model as I like to call it.

you may need to review that tagline, it's not exactly trippy.

back to the matter at hand, no loss, Uber are a pretty horrible company so no harm seeing them get a bloody nose.

The Wolverine

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The 'sharing your income with an opportunistic middleman that gouges sectors where the operators are not as likely to be as tech savvy economy' model as I like to call it.

Not to mention the "I hope uber succeeds and puts taxi drivers out of business as they so expensive compared to them" crowd

Uber operating at a loss in the hope of driving taxi drivers and taxi companies out of business until they are the only ones left.

Would love to see people's faces at the new fare prices if Uber got the monopoly they wanted

Muahahaha

Deliveroo operating here also have a similar model. They no longer pay their drivers minimum wage, just a set amount per delivery. If theres no work available they are expected to sit around unpaid, waiting for work.