Publication date: 14 September 2021
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:
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.read on
In this article, we will discuss several questions and challenges in the field of Dutch employment law, tenancy law and contract law during COVID-19.read on
A sick employee may not be dismissed. However, an employee who knows of imminent dismissal, cannot avoid this by reporting sick. But when does the employee know that this is the case? This question was central to the court case concerning the dismissal of a CFO of Volksbank.read on
Employers can determine rules on clothing and appearance in company regulations. What do employers have to keep in mind when setting such rules?read on
In the last issue of Stare Decisis, Priscilla de Leede of Russell Advocaten, Mary Edenfield of Mateer Harbert and Ed Belam of Marriott Harrison discuss the most important topics to include in your employment contracts regarding the termination of the contract. There are some important differences to take into account!read on
If your employee reports sick, this may raise many difficult questions. What are your reintegration obligations during the sick leave period? What are you allowed to record about your sick employee with regard to the privacy legislation? We answered these and other questions during a webinar. Watch the video!read on