Ruling on December 12, 2018
Authority: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Parties: Uber B.V. and others / Aslam and others
Subject: Right to holiday pay and minimum wage for Uber drives
Summary of facts: Uber drivers claimed to be ""employee"" within the meaning of the regulations and the law. The Employment Tribunal held a hearing to decide on this and ruled that (1) the drivers were employees of Uber London; (2) they had to be regarded as working during any period that they were on their territory (London), had turned on the Uber app and were ready and willing to accept rides. This ruling is confirmed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Uber interviews and recruits the drivers, Uber checks information from the drivers, Uber obliges the drivers to accept rides, Uber sets the standard route, Uber sets the rate, Uber sets conditions for the drivers (e.g. what kind of vehicle they should use), instructs drivers how to do their job and checks them in the performance of their tasks, there was a guaranteed income scheme, through the rating system Uber subjects the drivers to performance management and discounts (which have an influence on the income of drivers).
Legal question: Can Uber drivers be qualified as employees of Uber?
Considerations: There is a contradiction between the written conditions and the actual working arrangements. A factual arrangement can lead to the platform not only acting as an intermediary for independent workers, qualifying them as employees. On the basis of the proven facts, this is in fact an employment contract.
Ruling: The Court of Appeal confirms the decisions of the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismisses Uber's appeal.