Taxi Driver Online

Gatwick Airport traffic recap after taxi protest caused heavy disruption near terminals

https://www.sussexlive.co.uk/news/susse ... st-7732313

A large-scale taxi protest near Gatwick Airport caused heavy disruption approaching the North and South terminals this afternoon (October 21). It came after dozens of taxi drivers were claimed to have driven slowly on roads around the transport hub.

Disruption as a result of the demonstration ended at around 6.45pm after it lasted for roughly three hours. The action was thought to be in support of the Unite union and was said to relate to allegations of a staff member who was sacked by their employer, Airport Cars.

Traffic became "gridlocked" according to drivers stuck on the A23 Airport Way after reports of taxis driving "very slowly" between the roundabouts at each terminal. Travellers headed to the airport risked missed flights.

_________________
IDFIMH

This is on Unite's website.

Looks like the company has 'sacked' two different union reps. And there's also an employment status case in train

But the way it's portrayed here (and words like 'sacked') makes it sound like a bog standard union v employer dispute, whereas at the moment the drivers are presumably treated as self-employed.


Gatwick taxi drivers protest over attack on Unite rep

https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-even ... unite-rep/

Gatwick airport taxi drivers are today (Friday) protesting over an attack on their rep by their employer, Airport Cars.

The worker has been sacked for undertaking his duties as a Unite union workplace representative.

Full force

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said:“Unite will not tolerate attacks on our reps. The full force of the union will be directed into making Airport Cars right this wrong and cease its hostile treatment of union members.

"Attacks on members of our union will not go unchallenged, and our members at Airport Cars have Unite's full support.”

Airport Cars

Last week, Airport Cars notified the worker by email that he can no longer work for the company because he represented a colleague during a workplace dispute.

Unite represents nearly 300 Airport Cars taxi drivers, who are currently part of an employment tribunal case that will determine their employment status.

No investigation

The company has not conducted an investigation or held a hearing and has told the worker he cannot appeal the decision to sack him. Unite is in the process of launching a legal claim against the company.

The protest is also being held to challenge the company’s treatment of another driver, who is a former Unite rep. Airport Cars have prevented this driver from returning to work since the end of the pandemic, refusing to give an explanation as to why, other than claiming he has a ‘ban’ on his file.

Shock horror.

_________________
IDFIMH

The drivers at Gatwick are only allowed to do Gatwick work, they must have a certain level of vehicle, must adhere to the firm's dress code i.e. shirt and tie, and adhere to the rates laid down by the firm.

Is there anyone who thinks this is going to end well for the firm?

_________________
IDFIMH

In other words, they make Uber's drivers seem like free agents. Therefore in terms of the Supreme Court's decision, a fortiori* the Gatwick drivers should be regarded as having 'worker' status.


Which is presumably why they're trying to pre-empt the tribunal's decision by getting the drivers to sign contracts effectively giving them 'worker' status, like Uber drivers.

But it's a pity the Gatwick firm are taking their pound of flesh in terms of hugely higher commission rates to pay for the 'worker' goodies. But, again, Uber set the precedent there

*As the lawyers might say

And all this kind of stuff reminds me of all the pish a few years ago about the 'sharing economy' etc, and one article I read in 2015 said Uber was helping drivers restore the idea of the 'artisan'

This was written just after taxi drivers in Paris had been striking and protesting about Uber:


Of course, the "French-American professor, columnist, author, and public intellectual in economics and philosophy" who wrote that might have a point if he'd said Uber drivers have a bit more freedom than the likes of the Gatwick drivers. But 'artisans' and 'entrepreneurs' my arse

https://capx.co/the-uberisation-of-the-world/

If I didn’t know better, I would think these drivers were employed by airport cars…

_________________
Former taxi driver

I suspect that's the view the Tribunal will take.

And maybe why Unite is fronting it all, as they must view it as a sure thing.

_________________
IDFIMH

By 'employed' by Airport Cars, do you chaps specifically mean they're employees, thus a different status from Uber drivers?

Remember that there are three different situations in terms of employment status:

1 Self-employed (eg an independent HC owner-driver like me)

2 'Worker' status (eg Uber drivers after the Supreme Court case)

3 Employee status (ie, very few drivers in the trade, but that entails PAYE etc. That's where the word 'employed' comes in. If you're a 'worker' I don't think it's correct to say your employed, nor that Airport Cars is an employer. And, of course, a driver is certainly not employed by a despatch operation if they're genuinely self-employed. And, of course, you can't be 'employed' if you're genuinely self-employed.)

It's not clear from the reports whether Unite is claiming that the drivers are 'workers', or whether they're going for full-blown employee status

But, of course, in view of the closely controlled working conditions outlined by Sussex, it's certainly arguable that the drivers are nearer to employees than Uber drivers, but whether the tribunal might think that way, I don't know

I would say that it is still slightly grey but with a leaning towards Employee status.

_________________
Grandad,

Be surprised if the union doesn't take the view that they are employed, but I suspect they would be content to accept workers' status.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, Grandad, and of course the problem with the whole thing is that although the three categories are quite distinct as regards employment law and individual status, the legal tests and the various scenarios in the trade they're applied to are all shades of grey

But, of course, one major factor is that historically Uber drivers have been able to work for themselves and other platforms while logging on to Uber when they please. So to the extent the Gatwick drivers can't do that, then, a fortiori, you would think 'worker' status is a no-brainer, if not 'employee'.

But who knows how the tribunal will view these things? Employee status would certainly be very unusual (except, of course, in Melton ), and I'm not sure if a court or tribunal has ever decided that drivers are employees, or at least not in any high profile case.

And indeed while the drivers might prefer 'worker' status, maybe they wouldn't even want full-blown employee status, which could mean rostering and other losses of freedom etc.

And, of course, the problem is that the more perks drivers get from enhanced employment status, the more the platforms will want in terms of commission and rentals etc, so it's a double-edged sword

Maybe the firm might have to take a haircut as reducing driver’s take is simply not doable at Gatwick.

There are literally 100s maybe 1000s of jobs available around Gatwick, and even more in the wider Crawley/Sussex area.

Part of the firms biggest problem is that the only reason they got the contract to operate from Gatwick was they offered the airport the most money, by way of original lump sum and a high % of each job.

So maybe this saga will end up with the firm pulling out and the airport having to take on any liabilities the Tribunal decides on.

_________________
IDFIMH

Interesting, but somehow I suspect the airport would be contractually ring-fenced from any liability towards the drivers, so it would be up to Airport Cars, or the drivers might end up with nowt if the company folded because of the tribunal.

In fact that's probably one reason airports contract out stuff like that in the first place - they're protected against any contractual obligation towards the drivers.

It's probably a bit like local authorities contracting out school runs to the trade rather than providing their own transport. If a tribunal decided a self-employed driver was in fact an employee of the cab firm or had 'worker' status, it would be up to the cab firm to make recompense rather than the local authority. In essence, it has nothing to do with the council. Ditto Gatwick Airport, I'd guess