EAT upholds "workers" ruling against Uber

Online-based taxi firm Uber has lost its initial appeal against an employment tribunal ruling that its drivers should be treated as workers rather than self-employed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal today upheld a claim by two of its drivers, James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam, that they were Uber staff and entitled to holiday pay, paid rest breaks and the minimum wage.

Before the EAT Uber argued that the tribunal had erred in law in disregarding the written contractual documentation: the written agreements between the drivers and Uber were inconsistent with the existence of any worker relationship. The tribunal had further erred in relying on regulatory requirements as evidence of worker status, had made a number of internally inconsistent and perverse findings of fact in concluding that the claimants were required to work for Uber, and had further failed to take into account relevant matters relied on by Uber as strongly indicating that the claimants were carrying on an undertaking on their own account.

Dismissing the appeal, Judge Eady QC held that the tribunal had been entitled to find that the reality of the situation was that the drivers were incorporated into the Uber business of providing transportation services, subject to arrangements and controls that pointed away from their working in business on their own account in a direct contractual relationship with each passenger.

Having regard to the tribunal's judgment as a whole, it was apparent that the findings were neither inconsistent nor perverse. To adopt Uber's approach would be to lose "the overall sense of the findings".

She concluded: "I am satisfied the ET did not err either in its approach or in its conclusions when rejecting the contention that the contract was between driver and passenger and that ULL [Uber London Ltd] was simply the agent in this relationship, providing its services as such to the drivers. Having rejected that characterisation of the relevant relationships, on its findings as to the factual reality of the situation, the ET was entitled to conclude there was a contract between ULL and the drivers whereby the drivers personally undertook work for ULL as part of its business of providing transportation services to passengers in the London area."

On the "more difficult" point arising from the drivers' ability to accept assignmemnts from other operators in between Uber assignments, the judge said the tribunal had "grappled with this issue and permissibly concluded that this was not a fatal consideration in this case", given Uber's requirement that they accept at least 80% of trip requests.

Uber has said it will appeal further.

The decision affects an estimated 50,000 people across the UK, 40,000 of them in London, who drive for Uber. Uber claims that 80% of its drivers would rather be classed as self employed.

Click here to view the EAT judgment; and here for a Journal feature on the employment tribunal decision.