The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

British Employment Appeals Tribunal Finds Uber Drivers are Employees of Uber

by David Doorey November 10, 2017
written by David Doorey November 10, 2017

November 10, 2017

A British Tribunal has upheld the decision finding that Uber drivers are “workers” (i.e.  employees) and not independent contractors and therefore are entitled to minimum wage and coverage under a variety of employment protection statutes.
Here is the decision.
The drivers argued that while they are under no obligation to turn on the Uber App,

Are Uber drivers "employees"?

Are Uber drivers “employees”?


once they do so, they are subject to a litany of rules and control at the hands of Uber such that they meet the definition of a “worker” as defined in the case law.  Uber argued that is a technology company that simply offers an App and that it is not in the business of transportation.
What’s Old is New?
I was struck in reading the British decision at how similar the issues are to a case I argued way back in 1998 when I was a lawyer representing the United Steelworkers and its taxi arm.  I represented a taxi driver who had his throat slit by a passenger and had claimed workers’ compensation benefits.  The legal issue was whether a taxi driver operating under the banner of Blue Line Taxi (in Ottawa) was a “worker” for the purposes of the workers’ compensation legislation.  Here is the decision of the WSIAT in that case.  
We won the case.  The Tribunal ruled that Blue Line Taxi, the dispatch service, maintained sufficient control over the driver while he was driving his cab to render him a “worker” employed by Blue Line.  In particular, Blue Line enforced a variety of rules, including rules about the type, quality, and appearance of the cars, accepting and refusing fares, treatment of passengers, and dress code, and drivers could be effectively disciplined for violating rules by being suspended from the dispatch service.  Blue Line, like Uber, argued that it was merely a dispatch service, an technological intermediary between taxi drivers and the passenger, and that drivers that owned and maintained their own cars and licences were self-employed.
My point is that while there is a lot of discussion about “new forms of work” and the emergence of the “gig” or “sharing” economy, in fact many of the legal issues that arise from the “sharing economy” are not new.   There may be more workers engaged in this form of work than in the past, which has focused attention on the need to resist how we regulate work, but the legal issues are not particularly novel in most cases.
The relevant facts in the British Uber case included the following:
The Uber driver contract clearly stated that the drivers are independent contractors, but as in Canada, this was not determinative.  Tribunals and courts in both countries look beyond the words in the contract to examine the true nature of the relationship.  Does the worker more closely resemble an entrepreneur in business for themselves or an employee dependent on the alleged employer for their livelihood?
Uber drivers have their own Uber account and they cannot use substitute drivers or share their Uber accounts with other drivers.  Drivers are subject to a list of Uber rules, including rules about behaviour during and after the drive (must be polite and professional, zero tolerance for discrimination, no contacting rider after the ride, etc).   Violating Uber’s rules is considered “a breach” of the driver’s licence conditions.   Uber drivers cannot give passengers their own business cards as this is a violation of the Uber contract and therefore they cannot build their own business in this way.  The customer’s are Uber customers, not the drivers.
Drivers pay their own expenses, although Uber dictates requirements about the year, models, and colour of the cars.  Uber fixes the rate of the fare and discourages drivers from taking tips.  Drivers who reject multiple trips can be sent to the “penalty box”, meaning that they are logged off the Uber app for a period of time and won’t receive fare requests.   A driver who fails to accept 80% of trips can lose their Uber status. Drivers whose ratings fall below a specified level are effectively terminated, meaning that they are kicked off the Uber app.  Drivers are paid directly by Uber on a weekly basis based on the amount of fares they generated after a deducted service charge to Uber of about 20-25%.
The original Employment Tribunal ruled that Uber was in fact the employer of the drivers while the drivers were logged onto the Uber app and willing and available to take rides assigned by Uber.  Uber appealed.
The Appeal Decision
The Appeal Tribunal ruled in the workers’ favour, finding them to be “workers” for the purposes of employment regulation.  Their work hours consist of that time when they are in the territory in which they agreed to work and their Uber app is turned on and they are ready and willing to accept trips.  Once signed on, the drivers are subject to extensive control by Uber.
Uber argued that many of the “rules” that govern the drivers are simply regulatory requirements that apply to cars for hire in England.   The Appeal Tribunal ruled that an employment tribunal that the source of rules is relevant but need not be disregarded in the calculus of determining the extent to which a person is operating as a business as opposed to an employee.   Moreover, many of the rules drivers were subject to were imposed by Uber and not regulatory requirements.
The implications of Uber being found to be the employer of Uber drivers is significant.   It means that the regulatory standards applicable to employees apply to the drivers, creating new legal obligations on Uber.   No doubt Uber will continue up the appeal ladder.   Similar cases are going forward around the world, including Canada.  Earlier this year a class action lawsuit was filed in Ontario on behalf of Uber drivers claiming that the drivers are employees for the purposes of the Employment Standards Act.  We will keep on eye on that case.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Can an Employee Be Fired for Giving the Prime Minister the Finger?
next post
College Instructors Overwhelmingly Reject Employers' "Final Offer". Now What?

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
5h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 140 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 412 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
10h

This morning the president of @Carleton_U sent out a note underlining his understanding of “how painful labour disruptions can be to communities,” pleading for us to be calm and respectful and to support our students at the end of term. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1640430514627551256 Retweet on Twitter 1640430514627551256 84 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 242 Twitter 1640430514627551256
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

Oh fun.

‘AI is on the cusp of taking control: This is how it may all go wrong’

https://apple.news/AWvPXyT8WTVOs5byQvVk-3Q

Reply on Twitter 1640408084093779989 Retweet on Twitter 1640408084093779989 1 Like on Twitter 1640408084093779989 3 Twitter 1640408084093779989
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.