There was a button on the XDA for the driver to accept a job which the system allocated. The driver was expected to accept it forthwith and move to the pick-up location.
The ET found that when a job was notified to the driver s/he had to accept it forthwith. If they did not do so they had to give an acceptable reason. If the Controller deemed the reason to be unacceptable, the matter was then referred to a supervisor. Refusing a job in this way was known as "unallocation". A sanction might follow.
The ET found that the Claimants were limb (b) workers and thus entitled to holiday pay and the national minimum wage. The Respondent appealed.
The EAT dismissed the appeal. They considered that the ET, applying the "realistic and worldly wise" approach mandated by Autoclenz, was entitled to reach the conclusion it did. The working time appeal was also dismissed, the EAT saying that, being available when logged on was an essential part of the service rendered to the Respondent and therefore the ET was correct to find that this was working time.
Back to Contents
Uber drivers are workers 24 December 2018
The Court of Appeal has upheld a judgment that two former Uber drivers should have been treated as permanent staff and were entitled to the national minimum wage and holiday pay.
Are Uber drivers properly regarded as 'workers' or self-employed contractors?
They are workers, held the majority of the Court of Appeal in Uber BV v Aslam & ors (upholding the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal).
The essential question as regards worker status was whether, as the drivers argued, Uber contracts with the passengers to provide driving services, which the drivers perform for it; or whether, as Uber argued, it acts only as an intermediary, providing booking and payment services, and the drivers drive the passengers as independent contractors. The written contractual terms say the latter; but the majority hold that they do not reflect the practical reality of the relationships and can therefore be disregarded in accordance with the principle established in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher. Lord Justice Underhill, dissenting, would have held that there was no inconsistency between the written terms and the working arrangements: those arrangements were not essentially different from those commonly applying where taxi and minicab owner-drivers are booked through an intermediary. The majority also held that drivers are under a positive obligation to be available for work while the app is on, and that that amounts to “work” for the purpose of the Regulations. Lord Justice Underhill would have held that drivers should only be treated as working from the moment that they accept a particular trip.
The Court of Appeal has given Uber permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update.
Back to Contents
Holiday Pay – short-time working 2 January 2019
The European Court of Justice (CJEU) has held that a worker's minimum holiday pay under EU law cannot be reduced to reflect short-time working.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 108 of 598
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker