Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

The Future of Employment: Purposive Interpretation and the Role of Contract after Uber

Document Cited authorities 23 Cited in Related
Published date01 May 2022
AuthorJoe Atkinson,Hitesh Dhorajiwala
Date01 May 2022
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12693
bs_bs_banner
Modern Law Review
DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12693
The Future of Employment:Purposive Interpretation
and the Role of Contract after Uber
Joe Atkinson∗and Hitesh Dhorajiwala†
A person’s entitlement to workplace rights and protections under English law is conditional on
their relationship falling within the legal category of employment, byvir tue of them having the
requisite status. The employment status of individuals performing on-demand work via digital
platforms is particularly contentious and has been a focal point for debate in recent years. The
Supreme Court decision in Uber BV vAslam represents a ground-breaking judgment on this
issue,which has radical implications for the cor rectapproach to deter mining employmentstatus
more generally. It is argued here that,while leaving some important questions unanswered, the
purposive and relational approach to employment status developed by the Supreme Court in
Uber BV vAslam is to be welcomed,and that this new approach has far-reaching consequences
for the future of the legal category of employment.
INTRODUCTION
A person’s entitlement to workplace rights and protections under English law is
conditional on their demonstrating that their working relationship falls within
a legal category of employment by virtue of them having the requisite status,
of either ‘employee’ or ‘worker’. While always a question of fundamental im-
portance for employment law, the issue of status has recently become more
acute due to the increased fragmentation of workplaces, and growth of atypi-
cal working arrangements.1The employment status of individuals performing
on-demand work via digital platforms is particularly contentious, and has been
a focal point for debate in recent years.2The Supreme Court’s decision in Uber
BV vAslam (Uber (SC))3represents the nal chapter in the long-running saga
∗Lecturer in Law, University of Sheeld.
†Barrister, Devereux Chambers and Guest Lecturer, University College London. Our thanks to the
anonymous reviewer, and to the editors of the UK Labour Law Blogwhere an earlier version of this
piece was published.
1 See for example J. Fudge, ‘Fragmenting Work and Fragmenting Organizations: The Contract
of Employment and the Scope of Labour Regulation’ (2006) 44 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 609;
D.Weil, The Fissured Workplace (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,2014); V. de Stefano,
‘The r ise of the “just-in-time workforce”: On-demand work, crowdwork and labour protection
in the “gig-economy”’ILO Conditions of Work and Employment Series Working Paper No 71
(2016).
2 J. Prassl and M. Risak, ‘Uber, TaskRabbit,& Co: Platforms as Employers?’ Oxford Legal Studies
Research Paper No 8/2016 (2016); B.Rogers, ‘Employment Rights in the Platform Economy:
Getting Back to Basics’ (2016) 10 Harvard Law & Policy Review 479.
3 [2021] UKSC 5.
© 2021 The Authors. The Modern Law Review© 2021 The Moder n Law ReviewLimited. (2022) 85(3) MLR 787–800

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT