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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll