Menu
Supreme Court finds Uber drivers were 'workers' in successful case

Insights / / Bristol

A group of Uber drivers who made claims for National Minimum Wage and paid-holiday in the Employment Tribunal back in 2016 have been successful in their case at the Supreme Court. 

To be entitled to such rights, the claimants had to show that they were “workers” in accordance with the Employment Rights Act 1996 and not self-employment contractors as Uber argued. By this definition, a worker is either an individual working under a “contract of employment”, i.e. an employee (the Uber drivers did not argue that they were employees), or a so-called “Limb (b) worker” - an individual who performs personally any work or services for another party who is not their client or customer.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Employment Tribunal’s original decision, which Uber had appealed, and found that the drivers were "workers" when they had the Uber app switched on, were within the area that they are authorised to work in, and were willing and able to accept assignments.

Crucially to determine the true nature of the relationship between Uber and the drivers, the Court looked at the factual situation and the reality of the obligations between the parties. The various written contracts were not determinative of the arrangement. The Court emphasised the unequal bargaining power that exists in employment situations which means any written agreement cannot be conclusive in determining rights and obligations between parties.    

The Supreme Court concluded that Uber exercised a high degree of control over the drivers when considering that Uber set the fares and routes, imposed penalties if the drivers cancelled trips,  and withheld key information (such as destination and customer details) from the driver, to reach the conclusion that in fact the Uber drivers were "workers".

Uber have responded to the Supreme Court’s decision in this article, by seeking to emphasise that it only applies to “a small group of drivers using the Uber app in 2016”. However, it is likely that the case will have substantial ramifications for the company. Potentially, many thousands of current and former Uber drivers will have back pay claims for minimum wage and paid holiday and the decision will impact  Uber’s obligations towards their drivers going forward.  

Lydia Cammiade

Lydia Cammiade Associate

Related services:

Quick links

The Legal 500 2021

“Very available and responsive to company developments in real time. Frank, clear advice – not just the ‘easy’ answer.”

The Legal 500 2022

“The solicitors who have handled our employment related issues are of the highest quality in terms of their specialist area of expertise, their professionalism and their approach to us as clients and as people. Special mention has to be made of Laura Livingstone. Laura became a key member of our team and felt more like a colleague than an external adviser – a colleague you could rely upon. Laura’s attention to detail, professionalism and responsiveness was second to none. Laura has come to know and understand us as individuals and this has enabled her to personalise her advice and even sometimes to preempt our future requirements. We have a very special and extremely valuable relationship with her and the firm.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“Ince are an excellent “fit” with our specific needs. The firm has consistently provided a broad range of personnel-related advice and in our experience that advice has been consistently of the very highest professional standard: it has been timely, comprehensive, accurate and at a cost which is commensurate with the budget of an organisation of our size.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“The firm has an unusually high degree of insight into the practices and policies required by the Gambling Commission as regards compliance with its own requirements and conditions – particularly Andrew Tait, derived from his previous in-house experience.”

- The Legal 500