Uber rival’s drivers are ‘workers’, employment tribunal rules Gig economy blow as verdict says Addison Lee owes holiday pay and minimum wage
Addison Lee, a rival to Uber, has suffered a legal blow after a London tribunal ruled that drivers for the company were “workers” owed holiday pay and the minimum wage.
Addison Lee’s defeat follows a similar case last year against Uber: drivers for both companies argued successfully that they were not really “independent contractors” because they did not have enough control over the way they worked.
Uber, which is also battling to retain its licence to operate in London, will begin its appeal against that employment tribunal ruling on Wednesday.
The Uber case was the first in Britain to test the key premise of the “gig economy” that people who work via such apps are not employed by any company. But a slew of tribunals since then, including the one brought against Addison Lee, has highlighted that many other private hire and delivery companies treat their drivers as "independent contractors" too.“
If you think of Uber as the archetypal “gig economy” company, and Addison Lee as something a bit different — actually [this shows] they operate in a very similar way,” said Nigel Mackay, a solicitor at law firm Leigh Day who worked for the claimants in both the Uber and Addison Lee cases.
“It’s another example of self-employed independent contractor status being misused by companies like this to deny workers’ rights and avoid paying tax.
”There are two types of employment status in the UK: “employees” and “workers”. Both groups are entitled to the minimum wage and holiday pay, but only employees have broader rights such as suing for unfair dismissal. Independent contractors have none of these rights.
An Addison Lee spokesman said: "We note the tribunal's verdict, which we will carefully review. Addison Lee is disappointed with the ruling as we have always had, and are committed to maintaining, a flexible and fair relationship which generates work for 3,800 drivers."
The Addison Lee case, which was heard by the London Central Employment Tribunal in July, was brought by a group of drivers supported by the GMB trade union. Addison Lee argued its 3,800 London drivers were independent contractors who could “log on” to work whenever they wished.
But the judges noted the company exerted control over many aspects of the drivers’ work. The written ruling said the vast majority of drivers leased their cars from an “associated company” of Addison Lee. They were also given a dress code to follow and “driver guidance” such as: “Please do not engage in conversations about sex, politics, religion or anything controversial”.
The judges concluded that the drivers were “in a subordinate position” to Addison Lee and could not “sensibly be viewed as contracting with a client of their driving business”.
Addison Lee lost a similar case involving one of its cycle couriers earlier this year. Courier company CitySprint also lost a test case on the issue. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from Pimlico Plumbers and its founder, Charlie Mullins, after plumber Gary Smith persuaded the court of appeal that he was a “worker”, which allowed him to bring employment claims for discrimination, holiday pay and unauthorised deduction of wages.
source:
https://www.ft.com/content/8c604808-a20 ... 5e6a7c98a2