Uber B.V. and Others v Mr Y Aslam and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Eady |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0056/17/DA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Date | 10 November 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Jurisdictional Points,Working Time Regulations,Jurisdictional Points - Worker employee or neither,Working Time Regulations - Worker,Not landmark |
| Published date | 10 November 2017 |
Copyright 2017
Appeal No. UKEAT/0056/17/DA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 27 & 28 September 2017
Judgment handed down on 10 November 2017
Before
HER HONOUR JUDGE EADY QC
(SITTING ALONE)
(1) UBER B.V. APPELLANTS
(2) UBER LONDON LTD
(3) UBER BRITANNIA LTD
(1) MR Y ASLAM
(2) MR J FARRAR
(3) MR R DAWSON AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0056/17/DA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MS DINAH ROSE
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
and
MR FRASER CAMPBELL
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
DLA Piper UK LLP
3 Noble Street
London
EC2V 7EE
For the First and Second Respondents MR JASON GALBRAITH-MARTEN
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
and
MS SHERYN OMERI
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Bates Wells and Braithwaite LLP
10 Queen Street Place
London
EC4R 1BE
For the Third Respondents No appearance or representation by or
on behalf of the Third Respondents
UKEAT/0056/17/DA
SUMMARY
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS - Worker, employee or neither
WORKING TIME REGULATIONS - Worker
“Worker status” - section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”), regulation 36(1)
Working Time Regulations 1998 (“WTR”) and section 54(3) National Minimum Wage Act
1998 (“NMWA”).
“Working time” - regulation 2(1) WTR
The Claimants were current or former Uber drivers in the London area who, along with others,
had brought various claims in the Employment Tribunal (“the ET”), which required them to be
“workers” for the purposes of section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”),
regulation 36(1) Working Time Regulations 1998 (“WTR”) and section 54(3) National
Minimum Wage Act 1998 (“NMWA”). The ET concluded that any Uber driver who had the
Uber app switched on, was within the territory in which they were authorised to work (here,
London) and was able and willing to accept assignments was working for Uber London Ltd
(“ULL”) under a “worker” contract and was, further, then engaged on working time for the
purposes of regulation 2(1) WTR.
The Appellants (“Uber”) appealed, contending (relevantly) as follows:
(1) That the ET had erred in law in disregarding the written contractual
documentation. There was no contract between the Claimants and ULL but there
were written agreements between the drivers and Uber BV and riders, which were
inconsistent with the existence of any worker relationship. Those agreements made
clear, Uber drivers provided transportation services to riders; ULL (as was common
within the mini-cab or private hire industry) provided its services to the drivers as
their agent. In finding otherwise, the ET had disregarded the basic principles of
agency law.
To continue reading
Request your trial