Tag: UK Supreme Court

“Uber drivers are workers” says UK Supreme Court

This morning, 19 February 2021, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment on the case of Uber v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5.

In a unanimous, landmark decision, the Supreme Court agreed that Uber drivers were “workers”, not self-employed contractors, for the purposes of UK employment law. Worker status entitles drivers to (amongst other things) 5.6 weeks of paid annual leave per year and sick pay and, crucially, to be paid at least the statutory minimum wage (which can be backdated).

The Supreme Court further clarified that Uber drivers are entitled to be paid minimum wage for the entirety of the period that they are logged into the app and are ready and willing to accept trips, and not just during the periods that they are driving passengers to their destinations.

The Court emphasised that what is important is the reality of the relationship between the parties, and noted the following:

  • Uber sets the fare for its drivers’ journeys, thereby dictating how much drivers are paid for their work;
  • Uber imposes its own contractual terms on drivers who wish to work through the app;
  • drivers’ choices about whether to accept ride requests are constrained by Uber;
  • Uber exercises significant control over the way in which drivers deliver their services; and
  • Uber restricts communications between its passengers and drivers.

The impact of this decision, to Uber, its drivers and the gig economy at large, cannot be understated. Going forward, and barring legislative intervention, Uber and other businesses operating in the platform or gig economy will need to fundamentally reassess both their labour relationships and the viability of their business models in light of this morning’s judgment. How Parliament and businesses choose to respond is sure to have significant and far-reaching consequences for the shape and future of the UK economy.

© 2020 Vedder Price
For more, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Exiting from the EU: Bre(xit)aking News

EU brexit UK Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court of the United Kingdom by a majority of 8 to 3 has today confirmed that triggering the exit procedure from the European Union requires an Act of Parliament.

As such the Supreme Court disagreed with the current UK Government which had argued that Government ministers could rely on their prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union without prior authorisation by Parliament. Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies had argued that they too should be consulted. The judges did not agree with that view.

This is a big blow for the current Government. The judges held that triggering Article 50 will bring fundamental change to the UK’s constitutional arrangements by cutting off the source of EU law and by removing existing domestic rights of UK residents. As to the Brexit referendum, the Supreme Court confirms its political significance, however, notes that the statute authorising the Referendum was mute as to the specific legal consequences resulting from it. Defining the legal consequences will remain in the power of Parliament which will have to enact legislation fleshing out the changes in the law required to implement the referendum. Whether this will upset Theresa May’s timetable of invoking Article 50 by the end of March will have to be seen, the Government certainly does not think so and is expected to introduce a bill into Parliament shortly.

In the end the Supreme Court’s judgment is unlikely to change all that much given in particular that the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies are unable to exercise any veto. In addition, over the last days members of Parliament from other parties have indicated their support for the triggering of Article 50. For those hoping that Article 50 will not be triggered the question is whether the pro-EU members of Parliament are able to form a credible opposition in the time available and will vote as a matter of their conscience.

The uncertainty for companies will remain. The reaction amongst clients and companies exposed to the UK has been varied so far with some already moving jobs and operations while others are waiting or are committing to the UK despite Theresa May’s indication on future steps all supporting a hard Brexit. We are following legal and political developments in the UK closely and would be delighted to discuss concerns with you.

Full text of the judgment, transcripts from the hearings and parties’ submissions: here.

ARTICLE BY Oliver Heinisch of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Copyright © 2017, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.