Uber has lost its case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) over the employment status of its drivers.
The EAT agreed with the employment tribunal that the taxi-app drivers are not self-employed and are workers entitled to certain rights, including the national minimum wage and holiday pay.
The case was brought by the GMB union, which is now supporting 68 of its members in the case. Maria Ludkin, GMB’s legal director, said that the decision was ‘yet more vindication’ of the union’s campaign to ensure drivers are given the correct rights.
‘GMB is delighted the EAT made the correct decision to uphold the original employment tribunal ruling. Uber must now face up to its responsibilities and give its workers the rights to which they are entitled,’ she said.
Despite the victory, Uber UK's acting general manager, Tom Elvidge, said the company would challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court. He added that its drivers have the freedom to choose if, when and where they drive.
‘The tribunal relies on the assertion that drivers are required to take 80 per cent of trips sent to them when logged into the app,’ said Elvidge. ‘As drivers who use Uber know, this has never been the case in the UK.’
Glenn Hayes, an employment partner at law firm Irwin Mitchell, said that there was a lot at stake in this case and so it was inevitable that it would move to the Supreme Court.
‘Uber have been keen to treat this case as being discrete and have tried to suggest that it has no bearing on the rest of its workforce of around 50,000 drivers in the UK. That is nonsense,’ said Hayes. ‘This case examines Uber’s business model which applies to all of its drivers and I would expect to see many more claims being issued.’
This case also has ramifications for organisations that use similar gig economy models. For example, workers at Deliveroo have brought a similar claim, while Citysprint and Addison Lee are appealing decisions that their drivers were workers rather than self-employed.
Hayes notes that there could also be tax implications if HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) decide to challenge the status of Uber’s drivers for tax purposes, and they may have to account for National Insurance payments.
‘However, there are other, potentially even higher tax risks to the business,’ adds Hayes. ‘If the appeal courts decide that Uber is providing transportation, HMRC may also argue that it should be charging VAT to customers and paying it to HMRC – and this liability can be backdated by up to four years.’
