The rules and rules on employment status are complicated enough, but with the advent of the “Gig Economy”, this new brand of flexible and casual work has made the gaps and confusions of the law more and more frequent in this area. In the proceedings against Uber, the applicants claimed that Uber had failed to pay them the national minimum wage or to make payments during the annual leave. The action was brought by the applicants on the ground that they were employed persons and not self-employed persons. Uber argued that there was no contract with the drivers and that they were therefore not workers and therefore were not entitled to paid leave. Recent decisions of the Labour Court in this area have made it clear that the court will always look beyond what is written in the contract. The determination of employment status takes into account all elements of the relationship, in particular the interaction between the parties “on the ground”. France`s highest court called the relationship between Uber and one of its drivers an employment contract because it was not free for the driver to set fares, build a customer base or choose his route and Uber could sanction him for refusing to drive or for “problematic behavior” reported. This article sets out the main points of the judgment and comments on its problematic elements. Section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 provides that when a party enters into an arbitration agreement in court in respect of a matter to be arbitrated under the Agreement, the matter shall be referred to the court.
Uber`s request relied on this section. However, there are a number of exceptions to Article 7(2). One of these exceptions is if the arbitration agreement is not valid, as it would be if it purported to withdraw from the ESA. The award of contracts under the ESA is prohibited by Article 5(1) of that law. Uber recently appealed the court`s decision and we await the outcome. For Uber, however, the issue of its control over its drivers took an unexpected turn after Transport for London lost its license to operate in the city. TfL said Uber`s license would not be renewed on September 30, 2017, due to concerns that Uber did not conduct sufficient background checks on drivers and reported criminal activity. This is happening in the wake of reports of Uber drivers attacking passengers. The Labour Court referred to statements by Uber to TfL and relied on them as part of the evidence that supported its finding that the drivers were controlled by Uber and that they were “workers”. Uber will want to show TfL that it is a “fit and correct” private landlord who must be re-elected under license.
This may mean more “control” of drivers, which could run counter to his arguments before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The debate on the status of employment continues with the Uber case and also with the upcoming appeal of Pimlico Plumbers, which will be judged by the Supreme Court. We will follow with interest the results of these cases. . . .