Uber BV v Aslam

Uber BV and others v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5

Fact

Private hire vehicle drivers, including Mr Yaseen Aslam and Mr James Farrar, sought to establish they were "workers" for Uber, not independent contractors.

This status was crucial for them to qualify for statutory rights such as the national minimum wage and paid annual leave.

Uber contended that drivers worked for themselves, with Uber acting only as a booking agent.

The Employment Tribunal (ET), Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and the majority of the Court of Appeal all found in favour of the drivers, leading to Uber's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Held

The Supreme Court dismissed Uber's appeal, upholding the lower tribunals' conclusion that the claimant drivers were "workers" for Uber London under "worker's contracts".

The Court also affirmed that drivers were "working" whenever they were logged into the Uber app within their licensed territory and ready and willing to accept trips.

Comment

• The Court adopted a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, emphasising that employment legislation aims to protect vulnerable workers and that the "true agreement" must be gleaned from all circumstances, not just written contracts dictated by unequal bargaining power.

• Key factors indicating Uber's control and the drivers' subordination and dependency were paramount. These included:

  • Uber unilaterally fixing driver remuneration (fares and service fees).

  • Uber dictating contractual terms to drivers.

  • Uber constraining drivers' choice to accept trips through monitoring, "penalty" log-offs for low acceptance rates, and withholding destination information.

  • Uber exercising significant control over service delivery, including route direction and performance management via a ratings system that could lead to deactivation.

  • Uber restricting communication between drivers and passengers, preventing drivers from establishing independent businesses or customer loyalty.

• For "working time," the Court affirmed that a driver logged into the app, ready and willing to accept trips, was effectively "at Uber’s disposal", akin to being "on call".

• The Court clarified that contractual clauses attempting to exclude or limit statutory protections are void under relevant legislation.

• The Court found that the Employment Tribunal was "entitled to find" that drivers were workers, and indeed, that it was "the only conclusion which the tribunal could reasonably have reached".