Ian Smith takes two steps forward, one back & niftily tidies up some loose ends
- Carefully crafted documentation.
- Backdating holiday pay where the employer has refused to make payment.
- The burden of proof in discrimination cases—orthodoxy restored.
The first of two particularly newsworthy cases (potentially linked in their effects) discussed in this month’s brief is the decision of Judge Eady in the Uber BV v Aslam UKEAT/0056/17.
Certain drivers brought tribunal proceedings aimed at establishing ‘worker’ status for the purposes of rights to working time protection and the national minimum wage. Their contractual arrangements with Uber were carefully drafted to negate such legal liabilities. They were permitted to work for other organisations (though substitution was not allowed), had to look after their own vehicle and licensing and viewed themselves as self-employed for tax purposes; there was no uniform and no Uber logo for their cars, and the elements of control that existed were primarily those required by statutory regulation for any form of public vehicle hire.
The basic argument for Uber was that it was just another (hi-tech)
