Uber BV & Ors v Aslam & Ors [2021] UKSC 5

Uber drivers claimed they were 'workers' entitled to minimum wage and paid leave. Uber argued drivers were self-employed contractors working for passengers. The Supreme Court unanimously held drivers were workers employed by Uber London, emphasising the need to look beyond contractual terms to the reality of the working relationship and Uber's extensive control over drivers.

Facts

The respondents were private hire vehicle drivers who performed driving services booked through Uber’s smartphone application. The claimants, Mr Aslam and Mr Farrar, brought proceedings claiming they were ‘workers’ within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and the Working Time Regulations 1998, and were therefore entitled to the national minimum wage, paid annual leave, and protection against detrimental treatment for whistleblowing.

Uber’s business model involved passengers booking rides through its app. Uber BV, a Dutch company, owned the app and entered into written agreements with drivers characterising them as independent contractors providing services directly to passengers. Uber London Ltd held the private hire vehicle operator’s licence for London. Drivers were required to provide their own vehicles, could choose when and where to work, but were subject to significant controls including Uber setting fares, monitoring acceptance rates, and using ratings systems to manage performance.

Issues

Primary Issue

Whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers worked for Uber under ‘workers’ contracts’ within the statutory definition, or whether drivers performed services solely for passengers under contracts made through Uber as their booking agent.

Secondary Issue

If drivers were workers, whether they were working whenever logged into the Uber app and ready to accept trips, or only when actually driving passengers.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Uber’s appeal, affirming the employment tribunal’s decision that drivers were workers employed by Uber London.

The Purposive Approach to Worker Status

Lord Leggatt, delivering the main judgment, emphasised that determining worker status requires a purposive interpretation of the legislation. The purpose of employment protection legislation is to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation due to their subordination and dependence on employers.

The vulnerabilities of workers which create the need for statutory protection are subordination to and dependence upon another person in relation to the work done. As also discussed, a touchstone of such subordination and dependence is (as has long been recognised in employment law) the degree of control exercised by the putative employer over the work or services performed by the individual concerned.

Lord Leggatt held that written contract terms characterising the relationship should not be the starting point:

It would be inconsistent with the purpose of this legislation to treat the terms of a written contract as the starting point in determining whether an individual falls within the definition of a worker. To do so would reinstate the mischief which the legislation was enacted to prevent.

Factors Demonstrating Worker Status

The Court identified five key factors supporting the tribunal’s conclusion:

First, Uber fixed all fares and drivers had no say in remuneration. Second, contractual terms were entirely dictated by Uber. Third, although drivers could decline individual trips, their acceptance rates were monitored and penalised if they fell below prescribed levels. Fourth, Uber exercised significant control over service delivery through the app, route directions, and ratings systems. Fifth, Uber actively prevented drivers from establishing relationships with passengers that might generate future custom.

Taking these factors together, it can be seen that the transportation service performed by drivers and offered to passengers through the Uber app is very tightly defined and controlled by Uber.

Working Time

The tribunal was entitled to find that drivers were working whenever logged into the app, within their licensed territory, and ready and willing to accept trips. The obligation to maintain prescribed acceptance rates constituted an ‘irreducible minimum of obligation’ sufficient to establish a workers’ contract during these periods.

Implications

This decision has profound implications for the gig economy. It establishes that courts must look beyond contractual labels to the reality of working relationships when determining employment status. The judgment reinforces that statutory anti-avoidance provisions render void any contractual terms designed to exclude workers from statutory protections.

The decision confirms that control exercised through digital platforms and algorithms is legally equivalent to traditional forms of employer control. It also establishes that the absence of a continuous obligation to work does not preclude worker status during periods when work is actually performed.

The case represents a significant development in protecting workers in non-traditional employment arrangements and ensures that technological innovation cannot be used to circumvent fundamental employment protections.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that Uber drivers were ‘workers’ employed by Uber London under workers’ contracts, and that they were working during any period when logged into the Uber app, within their licensed territory, and ready and willing to accept trips.

Source: Uber BV & Ors v Aslam & Ors [2021] UKSC 5