Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

In reply to Anon 10 November 2017 14:23 GMT "The article is wrong to state that the Tribunal said that the judgement applies to all Uber's London drivers and beyond, it doesn't."

Funnily enough few will yet have read all 53 pages of the EAT judgment. However with respect, this is clasping at straws/misleading. Oddly, Uber's PR when they lost in the ET also said something desperate like that. The ET judgment at paragraph 10 expressly records the parties' agreement to take two test Claimants upon which to determine these preliminary issues. In reality, the ET and now EAT judgments clearly apply to all engaged under the same contractual arrangements. Which is basically all Uber drivers. The issues are effectively res judicata unless there are materially different individual facts with particular drivers.
As an employment lawyer, I wouldn't use Uber on ethical grounds, ditto any other tax and worker rights avoidance business. Apart from the increased business costs they now face, and claims for arrears of pay, the PR question for Uber will be whether they become ethically toxic. Or whether people focus only on lower fares and their convenience over competitors. Presumably HMRC will conduct an investigation as well.

Your details

Cancel