ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:5029
Ruling on September 13, 2021
Authority: Cantonial Court Amsterdam
Parties: Uber B.V./Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV)
Subject: Employment status between parties
Summary of facts: Uber is an international company which offers online services in the transport sector through matching passengers and drivers. Taxi drivers with a driver card and a business license can immediately start working as a self-employed person via the platform. Taxi drivers who do not have both the card and the license are – for now – excluded from the platform. Drivers must first agree to the employer's general terms and conditions upon opening the Uber app. Uber unilaterally changes these general terms from time to time. The ‘batch matching system’, which operates on data from all drivers and passengers, determines who is offered which ride. Uber uses various positive but also negative incentives to steer the behaviour of the drivers. FNV, a Dutch union, claims that the collective labour agreement for the taxi transport is applicable to drivers during the periods in which the collective agreement has been declared generally binding.
Legal question: Does the relationship between Uber and the drivers qualify as an employment relationship and is the collective labour agreement for the taxi transport applicable?
Considerations: The court rules that an employment contract exists between Uber and its drivers. The stance that Uber is just a technology company is put to the side since transport services are part of Uber’s core business. The drivers are obliged to perform the service personally and they receive wages in return for their labour. In addition, a “modern relationship of control” exists between the drivers and Uber. Uber unilaterally determines the conditions under which the drivers work. The drivers cannot negotiate the terms of their employment and they must fully accept the terms if they want to work for the platform. As soon as the drivers log in, they are subject to the financial incentives and the disciplining and instructing effects of the algorithm. The algorithm determines the distribution of the rides on the basis of priorities set by Uber. The drivers have no real influence on the price. Uber can also change the settings in such a way that this affects the ranks the drivers can achieve. The fact that the drivers have a certain freedom to refuse rides, to determine their own hours and to use different apps does not affect this outcome. The court also established that Uber falls under the scope of the collective labor agreement for the taxi transport.
Ruling: The court rules that an employment contract exists between Uber and its drivers. Furthermore, Uber falls under the scope of the collective labor agreement for the taxi transport.