Description
The Administrative Commission for the Regulation of Employment Relations (CRT) in Belgium determined that the working relationship between a driver (X) and the platform (Y) was not one of self-employment but rather an employment relationship. The dispute was centred on the correct classification of the driver's employment status, as he claimed that the conditions imposed by the platform made him feel like an employee rather than an independent contractor.
The driver argued that the working conditions imposed by the platform Y did not allow him to exercise his work as an independent contractor, suggesting there was a relationship of authority and lack of autonomy.
On 7 July 2020, a driver, referred to as X, submitted a request to the Commission Administrative de règlement de la relation de travail (CRT) in Brussels to determine the nature of his working relationship with a digital labour platform, named Y.
X worked as a chauffeur using his own vehicle and was connected to the platform Y, which managed ride requests, assignments, and communications. He held an "exploitant limousine" authorisation from Brussels Mobility and was registered as an individual business entity and argued that, despite being contracted as an independent chauffeur, the working conditions imposed by Y resembled those of an employee, given the lack of autonomy and control in his work.
X provided various documents, including service contracts, insurance descriptions, and terms of service from Y, to support his claim that he was being treated as an employee.
The commission evaluated the relationship against specific legal criteria to determine if an employment relationship existed. They considered aspects such as financial risk, decision-making power, work organisation, and hierarchical control.
On 26 October 2020, the commission ruled that X's relationship with Y was incompatible with independent contractor status and should be classified as an employment relationship.
The decision was based on the presence of several criteria indicating an employment relationship, such as:
*Lack of Autonomy: X had limited freedom in organising his work and was subject to strict control and instructions from the platform.
Control and Authority: The platform imposed a hierarchical control, monitoring performance, and dictating the terms of service provision.
Integration into Platform: The driver's work was integrated with and dependent on the platform Y's systems.
*Presumption of Employment: More than half of the legal criteria indicating employment were met.
The commission's decision binds the social security institutions involved, and it could be appealed within a month. If unchallenged, it would become final.
187 - Décision anonymiséee
Updates (2)
The following recent changes to this court ruling have been recorded.
- 22 July 2025
The Administrative Level Decision was nullified by the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles - The French-speaking Labour Tribunal of Brussels - on 21 Dec 2022. This ruling stated that the driver had no hierarchical control exercised over him and that he was free to organize his own work.
- 22 July 2025
In a landmark decision on June 13, 2025, the Brussels Labour Court ruled that the relationship between an Uber X driver, Mr. GG, and the platform operators Uber B.V. and Belgian Platform Rider Association (B.P.R.A.) is an employment relationship.
Ruling
- Keywords
-
employment status
- Actors
-
Court
- Sector
-
Transportation and storage
-
In December 2022, a Brussels court ruled in favour of Uber in a case regarding a driver’s employment status. The court determined that the driver had "a working relationship of …
-
On 13 June 2025, the Brussels Labour Court ruled that an Uber driver should be classified as an employee, not a self-employed worker. This judgement overturns a lower court's decision …
Belgium
