---

Description

In Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2018] IRLR 97 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that Uber drivers are 'workers' for the purposes of statutory employment rights. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal by Uber against an earlier Employment Tribunal (ET) decision.

The original ET ruling found that Uber drivers in London should be classified as 'workers' under UK employment law (specifically citing the Employment Rights Act 1996, Working Time Regulations 1998, and National Minimum Wage Act 1998). This status applied whenever a driver had the Uber app switched on, was within their authorised London territory, and was ready and willing to accept trips. The ET also determined this period constituted 'working time'. This 'worker' status is necessary for drivers to access rights like minimum wage and paid holidays.

Uber appealed, arguing the ET had wrongly disregarded the written contracts. These contracts portrayed drivers as independent contractors providing services directly to passengers, with Uber merely acting as their agent. Uber also contended the ET improperly relied on regulatory requirements, made inconsistent factual findings, and ignored evidence suggesting drivers operated their own businesses.

The EAT rejected Uber's arguments and upheld the ET's decision. Key points from the EAT's reasoning include:

• The ET was entitled to look beyond the written contracts to the practical reality of the relationship (applying the principle from Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher).
• The reality showed drivers were integrated into Uber's transport business and subject to significant control by Uber (e.g. by requiring acceptance of trips) which contradicted the idea they were independent contractors dealing directly with passengers. The ET could therefore disregard the 'agent' label in the contracts.
• Considering regulatory factors as part of the overall picture was permissible.
• The ET's findings regarding driver obligations (like accepting trips and penalties for cancellations) were not inconsistent or perverse.
• The ET's definition of when drivers were 'working' (app on, in territory, able and willing) was upheld as a valid, fact-specific assessment.

Judgement in Uber v. Aslam, Farrar, Dawson and others UKEAT/0056/17/DA

---

Additional metadata

Keywords

sector aspects, competition, lobbying, employment status

Actors

Other, Court

Sector

Transportation and storage

Platforms

Uber

Related initiatives

• UK Tribunal rules in favour of couriers worker status against CitySprint"

  The employment tribunal case Dewhurst v CitySprint UK Ltd follows a similar precedent to Aslam, Farrar & Others v Uber, addressing worker rights in the gig economy. Margaret Dewhurst, a …

  • View

• London Employment Tribunal rules Uber drivers are workers

  On 28 October 2016, the London-based Employment Tribunal found that under the Uber business model, two drivers were workers, not self-employed contractors, and were therefore entitled to national minimum wage …

  • View