Legal Skills & Methods: Analysis of Uber BV v. Aslam [2021] UKSC 5

This case study provides an in-depth analysis of the Uber BV v. Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 case, a landmark decision in UK employment law. It begins by summarizing the material facts, including the arguments presented by the appellants (Uber BV, Uber London Ltd, and Uber Britannia) regarding...Read More

Legal Skills and
Methods

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
TASK 1 ...........................................................................................................................................3
Facts of the case..........................................................................................................................3
Arguments from appellant...........................................................................................................3
TASK 2............................................................................................................................................4
Provide the following:.................................................................................................................4
1. Name of judges who heard case:.............................................................................................4
2. The court which heard the case:..............................................................................................4
3. Date of Judgement:.................................................................................................................4
4. Five aspects of ET that drivers were workers:........................................................................5
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
The law can be defined as the set of rules and regulations which regulates the behaviour
of the citizens and govern their working. The case of Uber BV v. Aslam is the landmark case of
company and labour law on the employment rights. Its main purpose is to protect the people so
that they can be entitled for fair wages on daily basis for the fair work day (Arpad and Zoltan,
2019). This report will deal with facts of the case and the arguments of appellant. Further it will
include the aspect of Employment tribunal findings which the Lords have stated in judgement.
TASK 1
Facts of the case
James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam are the founders of the App Drivers And Couriers Union
and lead claimants which were represented by the Bates Wells Solicitors with number of drivers.
It claimed that they must be paid with minimum wages under the law of National Minimum
Wages Act and receive the paid annual leave under the statute of Working Time Regulations
while working as the drivers for the Under. The other party is Uber BV, which is a subsidiary of
the Uber incorporated in Dutch who argued that the drivers of it are self employed and
independent contractors and the company owes no worker or the employee obligations. The
contract merely describes drivers as the partners and stated clearly that nothing will create the
employment relationship between the Uber and its partners. The argument from the side of
drivers were that this was the sham. Under Employment Rights Act, 1996, Section 230 stated
that worker is the one who is entitled to the minimum wages or the paid holidays if it has the
contract of employment or is anyone who performs the work personally but not for the customer
or the client (Danas, Drouyor and Hong, 2017).
Arguments from appellant
First appellant was Uber BV which owns rights in Uber Application. Second appellant is
Uber London Ltd , a subsidiary of the Uber BV who had license to operate the private hire
vehicles in the city of London. Third appellant is Uber Britannia who holds license to operate
outside London. In referring the appellant in this case, 'Uber' will be used.
It argued that in pursuant to the service agreement which was accepted by both customer
and driver and they separately entered into, the role of Uber was as the booking agent for the

independent contractors which offers transportation services and the contract is done only
between driver and end user who is customer (Riley, 2017)..
Uber were represented by Blackstone Chambers wherein the solicitors were Fraser
Campbell and Dinah Rose QC.
TASK 2
Provide the following:
1. Name of judges who heard case:
ET :
EAT: Judge Eady
Court of Appeal: Sir Bean LJ and Sir Terence Etherton Mr
Supreme Court: Lord Reed (President), Lord Kitchin, Lady Arden, Lord Sales, and Lord
Leggatt, Lord Hamblen, Lord Hodge (Deputy President),
2. The court which heard the case:
Firstly the Employment Tribunal heard the case wherein it was held that drivers are
workers as per the definition of section 230 (3) (b) of Employment Rights Act and entitled them
for the minimum wages and the holiday pay.
Then appeal was filed in Employment Appeal Tribunal wherein the appeal was
dismissed and held that tribunal is entitled to reject the characterisation of the relationship of
Uber in its written contracts. While deciding the issue of employment status, it is essential to
look at statutes and not just rely on terminology and definition which is used by parties.
Then Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that Employment Tribunal have
defined correctly relationship between the Uber and claimants.
Supreme court have heard the final appeal and held that Employment Tribunal is correct
and drivers of Uber are workers and entitled to minimum wages and the paid holidays which will
be calculated from a time when they log into the application of Uber.
3. Date of Judgement:
19th February 2021

4. Five aspects of ET that drivers were workers:
First is that the remuneration paid to the drivers for work is fixed by the company Uber
and there is no say of the drivers, moreover, the rides which are booked through the application
of Uber are set by it and the drivers are not permitted to make the charge which is more than the
charge which is calculated by Uber. Also the organization holds the control on the remuneration
wherein it has right to decide whether to make the partial or full refund of fare to the passenger
when any complaint is filed by passenger about service which is given by Uber driver.
Second is that the contractual terms are dictated by Uber on which the driver are required
to perform their services. The drivers are obliged to accept the standard form of the written
document as well as terms on which they are required to transport the passenger is also imposed
by company and drivers has no say.
Third is that the drivers may have choice to choose where and when they have to work
but once driver have logged in to the application, the driver has no choice as to whether to accept
the request for the rides as it is constrained by the company. Uber has right and absolute
discretion to decline or accept Uber has the request for ride
Fourth is Uber has significant control on the way in which the drivers are required to
seliver the services. The fact that the drivers offer their own vehicles means that it has more of
the control than would the most of the employees on physical equipment that is used for
performance of work. But Uber has power to decide on what type of car will be used. Itbis
compulsory for the drivers to follow the route fixed by Uber and customer have power to file the
complaint when a different route is followed and driver bears financial risk.
Fifth is that Uber restricts the communication between the driver and passenger to
minimum which is necessary to perform the trip and also takes active steps in order to prevent
the drivers from establishment of any relationship with passenger. Every thing right from
collecting fares, handling complaints and payment to driver is all managed by the company so
that direct interaction is avoided (McKee, 2017).
After considering all aspects and factors, it can be said that transportation service which
is performed by drivers and which is offered to customers is controlled by Uber. Moreover it is
organized and designed in such a way that it provides standardized service to customers.

CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the case of Uber BV v. Aslam provides that drivers of the company
are workers under the definition enumerated under Employment Rights Act and they are entitled
for the minimum wages too.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Arpad, K.G. and Zoltan, B., 2019. A Munkavallaloi sors Utvesztoirol a Platform Alapu
Munkavegzes Viragkoraban. Pecsi Munkajogi Kozlemenyek. 12. p.88.
Danas, A.M., Drouyor, J.W. and Hong, J., 2017. International Transportation Law. Int'l Law.. 51.
p.337.
McKee, D., 2017. The platform economy: natural, neutral, consensual and
efficient?. Transnational Legal Theory. 8(4). pp.455-495.
Riley, J., 2017. Regulating Work in the'Gig Economy'. Festskrift Till Ann Numhauser-Henning,
M. Roennmar, JJ Votinius, eds, Juristfoerlaget i Lund, Sweden.