In February this year, the Supreme Court provided its decision on a key employment case which has potentially far-reaching effects for those in the gig economy.
Aslam & Others V Uber BV & Others
This is a case primarily about ‘employment status’ but it also raises some very important points about the employment/services contract and what is written within it.
The Supreme Court has determined that Uber drivers are ‘workers’. This means they are entitled to employment benefits not afforded to those who are ‘self-employed’.
I think this case will be one of the most important this year as I find that some employers really struggle to know what the difference is between a ‘worker’ and ‘employee’ and a ‘contractor, whether self-employed or not’.
Are you confident that you know the difference?
This case arose when Uber appealed an Employment Tribunal decision that Aslam and his colleagues were found to be ‘workers’.
Aslam and colleagues were supported by their Trade Union (GMB), and legal teams
The appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court, who agreed with the Tribunal’s findings that the Uber drivers were, in fact, ‘workers’ and not self employed.
This case was brought back in 2016 when two Uber drivers brought a claim before an employment tribunal that they should be entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage for time worked and paid annual leave (amongst other legal protections afforded to those who have the employment status of a ‘worker’)
Uber argued that they were, in fact, ‘self employed’ so were not entitled to such ‘rights’.
So what does this landmark decision mean for businesses operating in the gig economy and what impact will it have on any business who operates a business model that uses self-employed resources?
You can read more [here] about the case.
The form you have selected does not exist.