In the United Kingdom, there are three categories of workers: employees, self-employed and workers. Section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act No. 199632 defines the mid-category of “workers” as individuals that undertake to do or personally, perform any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not that of a client or customer. Their work is done in exchange of a monetary reward or a benefit in kind. “Workers” are entitled to certain employment rights, including getting the National Minimum Wage; protection against unlawful deductions from wages; the statutory minimum level of paid holiday; the statutory minimum length of rest breaks; to not work more than 48 hours on average per week or to opt out of this right if they choose; protection against unlawful discrimination; protection for ‘whistleblowing’; to not be treated less favourably if they work part-time. They may also be entitled to: Statutory Sick Pay; Statutory Maternity Pay; Statutory Paternity Pay; Statutory Adoption Pay; Shared Parental Pay.

The Supreme Court’s decision of 19 February 2021 is in line with the previous rulings by saying that the drivers were part of the Uber business of providing transportation services as “workers”. It was based on the fact that Uber:

• defines the fares rates and the content of contract agreements, 
• penalises employees based on their availability and customer’s rates.

Therefore, the Court did not uphold the company’s view that Uber is an intermediary party between the customers and the drivers/independent contractors.

Since the original case required clarity also on “working time” for the purpose of calculating holiday pay and minimum wage, the company indicated that, to be considered as workers, drivers were working only when driving a passenger, rather than when logged into the app. On the contrary, the Supreme Court ruled that “In the present case Uber London in the Welcome Packet of material issued to new drivers referred to logging onto the Uber app as “going on duty” and instructed drivers that: “Going on duty means you are willing and able to accept trip requests” [...]. Logging onto the Uber app was thus presented by Uber London itself to drivers as undertaking an obligation to accept work if offered”. Therefore, the Court concludes that drivers are workers while they are logged into the app.

This is valid even in the case of a driver simultaneously logged in one or more competitor platform, basically because in this specific case there was no evidence to the contrary.

In practical terms, the case is now remitted to the employment tribunal, which could order Uber to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. The decision could also produce effects on all other drivers having taken legal action against Uber and all other new complainants under the same reasons. 

After the decision, Uber indicated that the additional amount to be paid to workers in terms of minimum wage and holidays’ compensation could affect its trip rates.

It also commented that since 2016 it has improved drivers’ conditions, for instance by offering free insurance in case of sickness or injury.