UBER
Status – What’s in a name?
In July 2016 we wrote
about the importance of
determining a person’s
correct employment status by
referencing an Employment
Tribunal claim that was being
pursued by a number of Uber
drivers. The decision of the
London Central Employment
Tribunal hearing was handed
down on Friday 28 November
2016 and has been widely
reported in the mainstream
and legal press.
In Aslam (and ors) v Uber BV (and ors) the
Tribunal decided that Uber drivers are in
fact workers, and not the self employed
contractors that Uber tried to make them
out to be. As the drivers fall within the
legal definition of a worker in s230(3)
(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996,
they now enjoy various statutory rights
and benefits such as the right to receive
national minimum wage and rest breaks.
The Tribunal was not at all impressed
by the way in which Uber attempted
to represent itself as a ‘technology
services provider’ and ‘booking agent,’
thus denying the fact that were in the
business of ‘providing rides’, something
that has made the company such a
huge international success. Uber
went to remarkable lengths to convince
the Tribunal of their case resorting
in its documentations to fictions,
twisted language and even brand new
terminology.
customers can only connect through the
app which is heavily monitored by Uber.
Further to the assertions and documents
that Uber presented in the case were
found to be inconsistent with the reality
their drivers face.
For example Uber had created written
agreements that imply that drivers are self
employed contractors who themselves
enter into contracts individually with
passengers. The written agreement places
the sole responsibility for the driving
service on the drivers, whom are referred
to as partners, and reiterate the assertion