Description
On 12 May 2021, the Paris Court of Appeal overturned a lower court's decision, ruling that the service agreement between an Uber driver (Mr M.) and the Dutch subsidiary Uber BV was a contract of employment.
The case was an appeal by the driver against a Paris Labour Court judgement from January 29, 2018, which had dismissed all of his claims. The Paris Court of Appeal overturned the initial judgement and ruled in favour of the driver, reclassifying his service contract with Uber as an employment contract. The court also rejected the claims against Uber France, finding it was not a co-employer, and only held Uber B.V. responsible for the damages.
The court found the driver's self-employed status to be "fictitious," concluding he was in a subordinate relationship with the platform. The key reasons for this decision were:
-
Uber unilaterally organised the service, controlling everything from vehicle standards to driver conduct.
-
The driver had no real freedom to set his own fares or choose his rides, as Uber controlled the pricing and penalised drivers for refusing too many trips.
-
Uber exercised disciplinary power through its rating system and by issuing warnings, one of which the court identified from an emoji showing a "cloud with lightning bolts".
As a result, the court treated the driver's termination of the contract as an unfair dismissal. Uber BV was ordered to pay the driver compensation for the dismissal, holiday pay, and a full reimbursement of his professional expenses totalling €38,088.67.
The case against Uber France was dismissed, as was a separate claim for "concealed work".
- Keywords
-
employment status
- Actors
-
Platform,
Individual worker,
Court
- Sector
-
Transportation and storage
- Platforms
-
Uber
Sources
-
In June 2018, following the deactivation of his account, an ex-Uber driver argued that his relationship with Uber was effectively one of an employee, not an independent contractor. He claimed …
-
A driver (Mr F.) asked for his contractual relationship with Uber BV to be reclassified as an employment contract, after Uber deactivated his account. The Paris Court of Appeal (10 …