The long-standing case of Uber and others v. Aslam and others (2016), in which was discussed in our March 2021 issue, has finally settled. The UK Supreme Court confirmed the views of the lower Courts stating Uber’s drivers status of “workers” within the UK legal system.

Digital platforms pose pressing questions about the employment status of the people working under these new ways. The central question on the appeal was whether an employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work is arranged through Uber’s smartphone application (“the Uber app”) work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual leave and other workers’ rights; or whether, as Uber contends, the drivers do not have these rights because they work for themselves as independent contractors, performing services under contracts made with passengers through Uber as their booking agent.

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”, 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.

In an article “Ramifications of the UK Supreme Court judgement in Uber B V Aslam and Others” recently written by Ravi Peiris, Senior Specialist, Employers’ Activities, Bureau for Employers’ Activities (ACT/EMP), Decent Work Team for South Asia , the UK Court decision is analysed from different standpoints, illustrating how the combination of both legislative and judicial intervention can bring the law more abreast of social and business realities.

The article underlines whether this judgement has affected the common law relating to employment relationship, also considering that it could have ramifications in other jurisdictions, such as South Asia, which follow the principles of English Common Law in determining the existence of an employment relationship.

The paper examines the implications of this judgment:

• on the status of own account workers/independent contractors: according to the author, the judgement acknowledges that Uber drivers are own account workers, based on the clear distinction drawn in UK employment law between an “employee” – who has a contract of service as opposed to a contract for services – and a “worker”, who is recognized employment benefits in terms of specific statutory provisions. There would be, in summary, a new category of “Dependent Contractors” among the independent contractors, who are recognized as “workers” for limited employment benefits but are not employees under the common law of Contract of employment.
• on the common law employment relationship: the judgementis a reflection of the willingness of the Court to take account of developments connected to new ways of doing business: instead of relying only on the pre-existing concept of the “employer-employee” relationship, the Supreme Court has recognised a new way in which businessis conducted and the need to provide a measure of protection to those who are dependent on others for their livelihood, and also extended certain protections to a particular category, but did so without undermining the defining characteristics of what constitutes an employer-employee relationship.
• on platform workers: a platform worker,defined as a person engaged in or undertaking platform work, is assumed not to have an employment relationship. The Uber case, according to the author, has also clearly affirmed that even the Uber drivers, that were under instructions of Uber as regarding their conduct and performance and could even receive letters of warning – were not employees who had a contract of service with Uber.
• on South Asian countries, pointing out that the Supreme Court judgement is an example to these countries to acknowledge and accept the concept of the new category of “Dependent Contractors” as previously defined, which envisages a contractor that may be somewhat dependent as in the case of the Uber driver but yet self-employed in status. Secondly, it shows a new way of thinking about work and social protection, that should no longer be the sole responsibility of the employer.

The article concludes by underlinings that there is a growing acceptance that work can be performed outside an employment relationship and to remember that there is a need to support the growing interest for self-employment and own account work, considering that the new generation is moving towards a “new social contract with more flexibility and opportunities for self-development. The 4^th Industrial revolution has created an “Entrepreneurial” thirst that need to be acknowledge and nurtured”.