ShareThis Page

British panel rules Uber drivers have rights on wages, time off

| Friday, Nov. 10, 2017, 11:21 a.m.
FILE - In this Friday, Sept. 22, 2017 file photo, an Uber App is displayed on a phone in London. Britain's Employment Appeal Tribunal Friday Nov. 10, 2017  ruled that drivers of the ride-hailing service Uber are entitled to basic protections such as a guaranteed minimum wage and paid time off. Judge Jennifer Eady dismissed an appeal Friday from the company in a closely watched decision that is expected to have broad implications for the so-called gig economy. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, file)
FILE - In this Friday, Sept. 22, 2017 file photo, an Uber App is displayed on a phone in London. Britain's Employment Appeal Tribunal Friday Nov. 10, 2017 ruled that drivers of the ride-hailing service Uber are entitled to basic protections such as a guaranteed minimum wage and paid time off. Judge Jennifer Eady dismissed an appeal Friday from the company in a closely watched decision that is expected to have broad implications for the so-called gig economy. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, file)

LONDON — Uber lost the latest round in the battle over its operating model Friday, when a British panel ruled that the company's drivers are workers, not independent contractors, in a decision with broad implications for the so-called gig economy.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a lower panel's decision, agreeing that the two drivers in this case were “workers” under British law and therefore should receive the minimum wage and paid holidays. Uber said it would appeal.

Judge Jennifer Eady rejected Uber's argument that the men were independent contractors, because the drivers had no opportunity to make their own agreements with passengers and the company required them to accept 80 percent of trip requests when they were on duty.

The tribunal, Eady wrote in her decision, found “the drivers were integrated into the Uber business of providing transportation services.”

The ride-hailing service said it has never required drivers in the U.K. to accept 80 percent of the trips offered to them and that drivers make well above the minimum wage. Employment lawyers expect the case to be heard by the Supreme Court next year.

“Almost all taxi and private hire drivers have been self-employed for decades, long before our app existed,” Tom Elvidge, Uber's acting general manager for the U.K., said in a statement. “The main reason why drivers use Uber is because they value the freedom to choose if, when and where they drive and so we intend to appeal.”

San Francisco-based Uber has expanded rapidly around the world by offering an alternative to traditional taxis through a smartphone app that links people in need of rides with drivers of private cars. That has drawn protests from taxi drivers who say Uber and similar services are able to undercut them because they don't face the same licensing and regulatory requirements.

Though the company argued that the case applies to only two drivers, Uber has tens of thousands of drivers in the U.K. who could argue they deserve the same status as the former drivers covered by Friday's decision. The court says some 40,000 drivers use the platform in the U.K., though the company said the number had grown since the submission to 50,000.

“Uber cannot go on flouting U.K. law with impunity and depriving people of their minimum wage rights,” said James Farrar, who with Yaseen Aslam brought the case against Uber. “We have done everything we can, now it is time for the mayor of London, Transport for London and the Transport Secretary to step up and use their leverage to defend worker rights rather than turn a blind eye to sweatshop conditions.”

The ruling also has implications for more than 100,000 independent contractors in Britain's so-called gig economy, where people work job-to-job with little security and few employment rights. Such employment, often for companies that use mobile phone apps to provide everything from food delivery to health care, has surged as the Internet cuts the link between jobs and the traditional workplace.

The case is just one of many focused on the rights of British workers in both the new and old economies - from Deliveroo food delivery drivers to foster carers and plumbers.

The decision reflects a general trend for the courts to intervene in situations in which “the individuals involved are in a position of substantial inequality and in that case merit protection,” said Susannah Kintish, an employment attorney at Mishcon de Reya, which isn't involved in the Uber case.

“There's a definite sentiment that the law needs to step in and protect them,” she said.

While the case is separate from London's decision not to renew Uber's license, observers are likely to watch Uber's response to see if a company known for hard-hitting tactics is willing to change. Following the licensing decision, Uber's new CEO, Dara Khosorwshahi, acknowledged that Uber “got things wrong” in the past and said the company would change as it moves forward. Uber is also appealing that decision.

In the meantime, the ripple effects of the case will expand.

“We anticipate that tens of thousands drivers will now seek to make substantial back-dated claims,” said Paul Jennings of Bates Wells Braithwaite, who represented the drivers. “Our clients have fought tirelessly to gain the rights that they clearly should have been afforded from the outset.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.