1. Dismiss Notice

Uber loses appeal in U.K. re Classification of drivers

Discussion in 'Perth | Uber Drivers Forum' started by HumungousDill, Nov 25, 2017.

  1. HumungousDill

    HumungousDill Active Member

    Uber has lost it's appeal in the U.K regarding the classification of it's drivers status as employees.

    It will now attempt to appeal via the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court.

    Uber plans to appeal to the UK’s supreme court against a ruling that drivers should be classed as workers, setting the scene for a landmark legal battle with major implications for the gig economy.

    The case will determine whether Uber’s drivers should be treated as workers, a status conferring improved rights such as guaranteed minimum wage and holiday pay.

    The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which is backing the two former Uber drivers at the heart of the case, said it was confident of victory.

    “It is unfortunate that rather than focusing on how to give its drivers a guaranteed minimum wage and paid holidays, Uber is instead choosing to waste everyone’s time by appealing once more,” said the IWGB general secretary, Dr Jason Moyer-Lee.

    The case hinges on the employment status of Uber drivers, who the taxi app claims are self-employed contractors. Uber says the majority of its 50,000 drivers prefer their self-employed status, pointing out that the two drivers who brought the case no longer drive for the company.

    The IWGB has said that being granted “worker” status would mean drivers would still be technically self-employed, but would also enjoy greater protections.


    eXploitation and Uberx zoom like this.
  2. HumungousDill

    HumungousDill Active Member

    Here's an interesting follow up article by Australian lawyers Sparke and Helmore.

    "In the absence of legislative reform, if we do see a case involving a gig economy business before the Australian courts, it is likely that the High Court's "quacks like a duck" test will be applied. As precedent set down in Re Porter (1989) 34 IR 179, the test emphasises that "parties cannot create something which has every feature of a rooster, but call it a duck and insist that everybody else recognise it as a duck", meaning that a business's legal responsibilities to workers will be dictated by the nature of the relationship itself (rather than its label under contract)."

    Uberx zoom likes this.

Share This Page