Supreme Court rules Uber drivers entitled to workers rights
The Supreme Court has this morning rejected Uber’s appeal against a ruling that a group of its drivers should be recognised as “workers”.
Judges unanimously dismissed the appeal.
After nearly five years in the courts, the decision could have profound implications for the so-called gig economy workers.
Uber drivers are currently treated as self-employed, meaning that in law they are only afforded minimal protections.
But the ruling means that the drivers in question will now be entitled to basic employment rights such as the minimum wage and paid annual leave.
The decision could also unleash a flood of similar claims against Uber. There are around 1,000 similar cases – which had been held pending the ruling – that could now be brought forward.
The company could also be forced to pay out millions in backdated holiday pay to drivers.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan was among those to welcome the decision, saying: “[This] is a landmark decision for people who suffer from low pay and a lack of security at work.
“I want London to be the best place to do business and also the best place to work. Gig economy workers deserve the same rights as other workers.
“I urge businesses in the capital, including private hire companies, to pay their workers the London Living Wage, and to give them the security they deserve.”
Uber pushes back
In its response to the judgement, the ride-hailing app said that the judgement only applied to 25 drivers who brought the case back in 2016.
It also added that it has made significant changes to its employment practices since then.
Jamie Heywood, Uber’s regional general manager for northern and eastern Europe, said:
“We respect the Court’s decision which focussed on a small number of drivers who used the Uber app in 2016. Since then we have made some significant changes to our business, guided by drivers every step of the way.
“These include giving even more control over how they earn and providing new protections like free insurance in case of sickness or injury. We are committed to doing more and will now consult with every active driver across the UK to understand the changes they want to see.”
But Paul Jennings, a partner at Bates Wells who represented the drivers, told Morning Wire that Uber’s response was “disingenuous”.
“Uber has spent half a decade fighting this claim. That would be a patently absurd thing to do if it only related to 25 drivers. Uber even set out the magnitude of these claims for its business model in its IPO prospectus.”
Jennings said that the response seemed like an attempt to quell the prospect of massive class actions, such as Uber has seen in the US.
“Ultimately, time will tell. It is aware of how profound the implications of this judgement for its business model are. But I know of at least 15,000 backpay claims that could now be on the way.”
Former driver Yaseen Aslam, who first brought the case back in 2016, said: “I am overjoyed and greatly relieved by this decision which will bring relief to so many workers in the gig economy who so desperately need it.
“I hope in future the government will choose to carry out its duty to enforce the law and protect the most vulnerable from exploitation.”
Decision threatens ride-hailing business model
Summarising the judgement, Lord Justice Leggett dismissed Uber’s argument that its drivers were independent contractors who work under contracts made with customers and do not work for Uber.
“Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill”, he said.
“In practice the only way in which they can increase their earnings is by working longer hours while constantly meeting Uber’s measures of performance.”
The court also found in favour of the employment tribunal’s earlier judgement that drivers should be deemed workers for “any period when the driver was logged into the Uber app within the territory in which the driver was licensed to operate and was ready and willing to accept trips”.
The ride-hailing app had argued that worker status should only apply when drivers were actually driving passengers.
Joe Aiston, senior associate at law firm Taylor Wessing, said that the decision could have a considerable impact on Uber’s business model.
“Any move by Uber to engage all of its drivers as workers and thereby incur the significant costs involved would almost certainly involve passing those costs onto Uber’s customers in fare increases.
“This risks making Uber less competitive with the increasing number of rival “ride sharing” companies”, he said.