Drivers were, according to Uber, performing services ‘solely for and under contracts made with passengers through the agency of the company’. Uber submitted that the claimants were not to be regarded as working under contracts with the company whereby they undertook to perform services for the company. Turning to assess whether s.230(3)(b) criteria was met, the only element refuted was that there was ‘a contract whereby an individual undertakes to perform work or services for the other party’, i.e.
In this case, there was no contract of employment, per s.230(3)(a). Was it whenever they were logged into the Uber app within the territory in which they were licensed to operate and ready and willing to accept trips or only when transporting passengers to their desired destinations?įor the purposes of s.230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a ‘worker’ is defined as follows: If the former, it was necessary to consider the circumstances in which the drivers were working under such contracts. When the claim was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, the central question was whether the Tribunal was correct to find that drivers, whose services were arranged through Uber’s smartphone app, ‘work’ for Uber under a worker’s contract, or whether they instead work for themselves as ‘independent contractors’, performing services under contracts made with passengers through Uber as their booking agent? It also has ramifications for negligence liability, where the relevant duty of care is contested.Īt the time of the initial Employment Tribunal hearing, in 2016, there were 30,000 Uber drivers operating in London and 2 million registered users of the Uber app. Although every case turns on its own facts, this latest Uber ruling has the potential to trigger a wave of employment litigation brought by constituents of the UK’s ‘gig economy’, of which there are around 5 million. The Supreme Court has delivered a ‘landmark decision’ in the case of Uber BV & Ors v Aslam & Ors UKSC 5, on the proper employment status of private hire vehicle drivers described as ‘independent contractors’.