Case No: C 449/17
Ruling on January 12, 2018
Authority: The Labour Court of South Africa
Parties: Uber South Africa Technology / National Union of Public Service and allied workers
Subject: The classification of South-African Uber-drivers, the importance afforded to the contract between drivers and Uber BV or Uber SA
Summary of facts: Petition of appeal in the case between South-African Uber-drivers in which the contend that the should be classified as ‘employees’ and therefore fall within the scope of article 213 of the Labour Relations Act. Uber South-Africa (Uber SA) claim that no contractual relation exists beween Uber SA and the drivers. The Drivers have a contractual relation with Uber BV which is established in the Netherlands. In response the Uber Drivers maintain that Uber SA is their actual employer, Uber BV is merely the parent company. Uber SA is the actual operating company. Uber BV, however, is the legal counterparty of the drivers and formally decides to terminate the app of drivers.
Legal question: Are the Uber-drivers employees of Uber South-Africa (Uber SA) within the meaning of article 213 of the Labour Relations Act?
Considerations: The Labour Court does not address the legal question concerning the classification of Uber-drivers as employees or entrepreneurs. The court finds that drivers of Uber SA are not employees of Uber SA. The decision reflects the ruling that Uber SA and Uber BV are separate legal entities. Offering the Uber-app to the partner (Uber SA) creates a legal commercial relationship between Uber BV and the partner. That relationship is governed by an intercompany-service agreement. This agreement states that the Uber BV and not Uber SA will be the legal entity that offers services to drivers. Uber SA is expressly not authorized to enter into negotiations with drivers. Therefore, no contractual relationship exists between the drivers and Uber SA.
Ruling: Uber SA is a separate legal entity. The initial ruling given by the lower court, finding that the drivers are employees of Uber SA, is therefore overturned.