Uber BV v Aslam
Uber drivers were workers, not independent contractors, because Uber exercised a high degree of control over them, and the written terms did not reflect the reality of the relationship.
Facts
Mr Aslam and other drivers who used the Uber app in London brought claims in the employment tribunal for the national minimum wage and paid holiday, which are available only to workers. Uber argued that the drivers were self employed contractors who worked for themselves, and that Uber merely provided a technology platform which connected them with passengers. The written agreements between Uber and the drivers described the relationship in those terms.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the drivers were workers. Lord Leggatt said that the question whether a person is a worker is a matter of statutory interpretation, not contract, and that the purpose of the legislation is to protect vulnerable individuals who are subordinate to and dependent on another. The court should therefore look at the reality of the relationship, not just the written terms. Uber set the fares, imposed the contract terms, controlled whether drivers could accept or decline trips, monitored them through a rating system, and restricted communication with passengers. The drivers were working from the time they logged on to the app in their territory and were ready and willing to accept trips.
Related cases on employment status
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, [2011] ICR 1157
- Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 973
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP [2014] UKSC 32, [2014] 1 WLR 2047
- Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042
- Express and Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton [1999] ICR 693
- Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee [2023] UKSC 43
- James v Greenwich London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 35, [2008] ICR 545
- James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] ICR 1006
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
