Uber BV v Aslam

Worker status depends on the true nature of the relationship, assessed from the statutory language and the factual reality, rather than contractual labels. In employment cases, written terms may be disregarded where they do not reflect the parties’ actual agreement. Relevant considerations include personal service, integration into another business, control, and the individual’s true independence.

A driver may be a worker during periods between assignments where the driver is in the relevant territory, has the work app switched on, and is ready and willing to accept trips. Such periods may constitute working time where the driver is working, carrying out duties, and at the employer’s disposal. The assessment remains fact-sensitive.

Uber drivers brought statutory claims requiring them to qualify as workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Employment Tribunal held that Uber London Ltd employed the drivers as limb (b) workers.

The Tribunal also held that working time included periods when a driver was in the authorised territory, had the app switched on, and was able and willing to accept assignments. It treated the drivers as performing unmeasured work for minimum-wage purposes. Uber appealed, arguing that the drivers contracted with passengers and that Uber London Ltd acted only as their agent. The central issue was whether, when working, the drivers worked for Uber London Ltd or operated businesses on their own account.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the drivers worked under contracts with Uber London Ltd and personally undertook services for it.
2. For statutory employment-status purposes, the Tribunal had to identify the true agreement and the reality of the obligations. It was not bound by contractual labels describing Uber London Ltd as the drivers’ agent. The approach in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher required a realistic and purposive assessment of all the circumstances, including relative bargaining power.
3. The Tribunal permissibly found that the drivers were integrated into Uber’s transportation business and were not operating independent businesses contracting directly with passengers. Relevant features included Uber’s control of passenger information, fares and routes; requirements concerning acceptance and cancellation of trips; ratings and deactivation procedures; restrictions on contact with passengers; and Uber’s handling of complaints, refunds and certain losses.
4. Regulatory requirements were part of the factual matrix. The Tribunal was not required to disregard a factor merely because it arose partly from the regulatory regime. In this case, several important controls went beyond what regulation required.
5. The Tribunal’s findings had to be read as a whole. They were not inconsistent or perverse. The drivers could be workers during periods when they were in the territory, had the app switched on, and were able and willing to accept assignments. They were plainly workers when a trip had been accepted.
6. For the purposes of regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the three elements of working, carrying out activities or duties, and being at the employer’s disposal were conjunctive. The Tribunal was entitled to find those elements satisfied on the facts, although the position between assignments remained a matter of fact and degree. The minimum-wage conclusion followed the finding that the drivers performed unmeasured work.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed Uber’s appeal and upheld the Employment Tribunal’s findings on worker status, working time and unmeasured work.
• London Central Employment Tribunal: held that Uber London Ltd employed the drivers as limb (b) workers and that specified periods with the app switched on constituted working time.