ECJ 22 April 2020, Case C-692/19 (Yodel Delivery Network), Working time, Employment status

B - v - Yodel Delivery Network Ltd, UK case

ECJ 22 April 2020, Case C-692/19 (Yodel Delivery Network), Working time, Employment status

B - v - Yodel Delivery Network Ltd, UK case

2019/24 Court of Appeal rejects Uber’s worker status appeal (UK)

Following an appeal by Uber against the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) finding last year, which was featured in EELC 2018/9, that drivers engaged by Uber are ‘workers’ rather than independent contractors (reported in EELC 2018-1), the Court of Appeal (CA) has now upheld the EAT’s decision. The CA also upheld the finding of the Employment Tribunal (ET), which was featured in EELC 2017/10, that drivers are working when they are signed into the Uber app and ready to work (reported in EECL 2017-1). Uber has approximately 40,000 drivers (and about 3.5 million users of its mobile phone application in London alone) and so this decision has potentially significant financial consequences for the company.

2019/24 Court of Appeal rejects Uber’s worker status appeal (UK)

Following an appeal by Uber against the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) finding last year, which was featured in EELC 2018/9, that drivers engaged by Uber are ‘workers’ rather than independent contractors (reported in EELC 2018-1), the Court of Appeal (CA) has now upheld the EAT’s decision. The CA also upheld the finding of the Employment Tribunal (ET), which was featured in EELC 2017/10, that drivers are working when they are signed into the Uber app and ready to work (reported in EECL 2017-1). Uber has approximately 40,000 drivers (and about 3.5 million users of its mobile phone application in London alone) and so this decision has potentially significant financial consequences for the company.

2018/9 Uber’s work status appeal rejected (UK)

Following an appeal by Uber against an employment tribunal (ET) finding last year, which was featured in EELC 2017/10, that its drivers are ‘workers’ and not self-employed contractors (reported in EELC 2017-1), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has now upheld the ET’s original decision. The EAT rejected Uber’s arguments that it was merely a technology platform, as well as its statement that it did not provide transportation services. This decision is important as it means that Uber drivers are entitled to certain rights under UK law, such as the right to holiday pay, to the national minimum wage (NMW) and protection against detrimental treatment for ‘blowing the whistle’ against malpractice. Uber has approximately 40,000 drivers (and about 3.5 million users of its mobile phone application in London alone) and so this decision has potentially significant financial consequences for the company.

ECJ 20 December 2017, case C-434/15 (Uber Spain), Employment status

The overall degree of control which the Uber platform exercises over the workforce does not suggest that it acts merely as an intermediary. The services Uber provides fall within the field of transport within the meaning of EU law and not under the freedom to provide services. It is therefore for the Member States to regulate the conditions under which such services are to be provided in conformity with the general rules of the TFEU.

2018/9 Uber’s work status appeal rejected (UK)

Following an appeal by Uber against an employment tribunal (ET) finding last year, which was featured in EELC 2017/10, that its drivers are ‘workers’ and not self-employed contractors (reported in EELC 2017-1), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has now upheld the ET’s original decision. The EAT rejected Uber’s arguments that it was merely a technology platform, as well as its statement that it did not provide transportation services. This decision is important as it means that Uber drivers are entitled to certain rights under UK law, such as the right to holiday pay, to the national minimum wage (NMW) and protection against detrimental treatment for ‘blowing the whistle’ against malpractice. Uber has approximately 40,000 drivers (and about 3.5 million users of its mobile phone application in London alone) and so this decision has potentially significant financial consequences for the company.

ECJ 20 December 2017, case C-434/15 (Uber Spain), Employment status

The overall degree of control which the Uber platform exercises over the workforce does not suggest that it acts merely as an intermediary. The services Uber provides fall within the field of transport within the meaning of EU law and not under the freedom to provide services. It is therefore for the Member States to regulate the conditions under which such services are to be provided in conformity with the general rules of the TFEU.

ECJ 2 March 2017, case C-97/16 (Perez Retamero), Employment status

Based on a challenge to the dismissal of a transporter of goods, certain questions were referred to the ECJ under Directive 2002/15 on the organisation of working time for persons performing mobile road transport activities. However, the questions related, not to dismissal, but to how ‘mobile workers’ were defined in the Directive (as the worker sought to establish that he was employed and therefore entitled to full employment rights). The Court ruled that, as the Directive related to how working time is organised, rather than dismissal, the questions were inadmissible.

ECJ 2 March 2017, case C-97/16 (Perez Retamero), Employment status

Based on a challenge to the dismissal of a transporter of goods, certain questions were referred to the ECJ under Directive 2002/15 on the organisation of working time for persons performing mobile road transport activities. However, the questions related, not to dismissal, but to how ‘mobile workers’ were defined in the Directive (as the worker sought to establish that he was employed and therefore entitled to full employment rights). The Court ruled that, as the Directive related to how working time is organised, rather than dismissal, the questions were inadmissible.