Mr Yaseen Aslam and Mr James Farrar claimed that they should be paid the minimum wage under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and receive paid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 while working as drivers for Uber. Uber BV, a Dutch incorporated subsidiary of Uber argued that their drivers were self-employed independent contractors, and that it owed them no worker or employee obligations. Its contracts described Mr Aslam and Mr Farrar as "partners" and stated that "nothing shall create an employment relationship between Uber and the partner". Aslam and Farrar argued that this was a sham. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996section 230 a "worker" who is entitled to the minimum wage or paid holidays is anyone with a contract of employment or anyone who personally performs work but not for a client or customer. Mr Aslam and Mr Farrar contended they were workers.
Judgment
Employment tribunal
The employment tribunal unanimously held that Mr Aslam and Mr Farrar were "workers" within the definition in s.230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and were thus entitled to the minimum wage and holiday pay. The tribunal did not specify whether the claimants were also employees. As to Uber's tactics in pursuing its case, the Tribunal observed: The Tribunal gave the following reasons for arriving at its decision:
An organisation resorting in its documentation to fictions, twisted language and even brand new terminology, merited a degree of scepticism.
There were many things said and written in the name of Uber in unguarded moments, which reinforce the Claimants' simple case that the organisation runs a transportation business and employs the drivers to that end.
It is unreal to deny that Uber is in business as a supplier of transportation services.
Uber's general case and the written terms on which they rely do not correspond with the practical reality.
The logic of Uber's case became all the more difficult as it was developed.
It was not real to regard Uber as working "for" the drivers and that the only sensible interpretation is that the relationship was the other way around.
The drivers fell full square within the terms of the 1996 Act, s 230.
The guidance in the principal authorities favoured the conclusion.
The authorities relied upon by Uber's counsel did not support the conclusion for which he argued.
The terms on which Uber rely do not correspond with the reality of the relationship between the organisation and the drivers. Accordingly, the Tribunal is free to disregard them.
None of the above reasoning should be taken as doubting that the Respondents could have devised a business model not involving them employing drivers. The Tribunal found only that the model which they chose failed to achieve that aim.
The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision, so that Uber drivers are workers entitled to the minimum wage and paid holidays. The joint majority judgment said the following: Underhill LJ dissented, saying the following.
Uber announced that, having been granted permission to appeal, it would do so to the UK Supreme Court. The hearing before the Supreme Court is scheduled for 21 July 2020.
