According to the Amsterdam District Court, Uber drivers are employees. Therefore, they are covered by the collective agreement of the taxi industry with all associated rights and obligations. How did the District Court reach this judgement? And what does it mean for other forms of platform work?
When is a contractor an employee? Where is the line between self-employment and false self-employment? What makes a contract an employment contract? These questions remain difficult to answer. Even after the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands of 6 November 2020. We previously wrote about the ambiguities concerning the management agreement, now we have a look at the other side of the labour market: platform workers. In this case, Uber drivers.
The Federation of Dutch Trade Unions (FNV) filed a claim with the Amsterdam District Court that Uber drivers should also be covered by the collective labour agreement of the taxi industry. Granting the claim has major consequences for Uber. If Uber falls under the collective labour agreement, it will have to pay higher minimum wages and must also meet other employment conditions.
Uber therefore argues that it only acts as an intermediary and is not an employer. In fact, it is even a contractor for its drivers. After all, Uber, on behalf of its drivers, ensures that the costumers pay and that they receive the money. How does the Court rule?
The Court looks at the principles under which the drivers can use the Uber app. Do these meet the characteristics of an employment contract: work, wages, and authority?
Uber’s contention that it only acts as an intermediary does not apply. The drivers work under a contract they conclude with Uber. In addition, Uber’s core business is transportation and not acting as an intermediary. The work must be performed by drivers in person. Uber monitors this by requiring them to take a selfie. The reason for this check is that the drivers are only allowed to transport people if they have a licence. That this is a statutory requirement does not make a difference to the Court. The Uber driver must perform the work in person.
The drivers receive money for the rides they drive. This is paid by another company, Uber Pay. Also, it is not called wages, but fare. Both of these things, however, do not change the fact that Uber drivers receive wages for their work.
The main difference between employees and self-employed workers is the relationship of authority. The Court notes that employees have become increasingly independent. Authority is often exercised indirectly and digitally by the employer.
This “modern relationship of authority” also exists between Uber and its drivers, according to the Court. Drivers cannot negotiate the terms of the Uber app. Uber also regularly changes these conditions unilaterally. In addition, drivers have no influence on the fare. That is determined by Uber. Finally, the drivers are controlled by the algorithm of the Uber app. Uber determines that algorithm. So this is a case of “modern employer authority” by Uber.
The Court concluded that Uber is the employer of the drivers. As taxi transport is the core business of Uber, the company is covered by the collective labour agreement of the taxi industry.
What is striking about this case is that it does not concern a dispute between Uber and its drivers, but between Uber and the FNV union. The FNV was involved in the conclusion of the taxi industry’s collective labour agreement. This has been declared generally binding. Therefore, the FNV has an interest in ensuring that all taxi companies comply with this collective agreement. Even if the drivers do not want to be covered by the collective labour agreement. This also applies to other collective agreements. Clients therefore have to take into account that even if their contractors and self-employed workers agree to work under a commission contract, a trade union can enforce compliance with a collective labour agreement.
As the drivers are not a party to this lawsuit, the Court rejected a number of the FNV’s claims. FNV demands that Uber, within 14 days, gives all drivers who request it, a correct specification of what they are still entitled to on the basis of the collective labour agreement. If Uber is too late, it must pay the FNV a penalty of € 10,000 per driver. The Court finds this requirement too vague. Moreover, only a driver can judge whether a specification is correct.
An unexpected consequence for Uber may also be that the company is required to allow its drivers to take part in the works council. As the algorithm also includes an assessment of the drivers, this may require the consent of the works council. Of course, this may also apply to other platform companies that use algorithms.
Do you want to know whether your company is covered by a collective labour agreement? Do you have a dispute about false self-employment? Or do you need advice about any other employment law issue? Please contact us:
What is the difference between a contract for services and an employment contract? Are you sure that a contractor does not qualify as an employee? And why is this difference of importance?
Do the new rules of the Supreme Court for the assessment of employment contracts also have consequence for management agreements? Case law has not decided yet. This can be seen from the judgments of the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal and the District Court of Midden-Nederland about the management agreement of the CFO of Volksbank.
The start of a new year brings not only new resolutions and crowded gyms but also important changes in laws and regulations. This year is no exception, with several significant amendments to employment law that took effect on 1 January 2025. Here, we outline the key points to watch out for as an employer or employee.
The holiday season is approaching, a time of joy and days off for many. However, not everyone finds these holidays equally meaningful.
On Monday 4 November 2024, Russell Advocaten Russell Advocaten will host a seminar on Dutch labour law for diplomats, consular agents, and administrative staff from Embassies and Consulates in collaboration with Diplomat Magazine.
On Wednesday 2 October 2024, Jan Dop will be one of the members of the panel that will present timely labor and employment law issues to Primerus clients.
