Addison Lee is the latest example of a ‘gig economy’ company where the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a claim for “worker” status. A worker has limited employment rights such as paid holiday, sick pay and protection from victimisation as a whistleblower. The Addison Lee case follows on from the EAT’s judgment against Uber, which held that drivers were workers when they were logged into the app. The same conclusion has been reached in this case. The following guidance emerges from the several gig economy courier and driver cases heard over the last two years:
it is important to look at the reality of the relationship, not just the written contract which perhaps “armies of lawyers" created;
to be a worker there has to be personal service from the individual. In the Deliveroo union recognition case, riders were held not to be workers because they had a genuine right to appoint a “substitute” to carry out the deliveries and indeed sometimes did so;
firms such as Uber and Addison Lee are not ones where the driver is partnering with the company as a genuine self-employed business and this is shown by the fact that:
even if free to work for other companies when the app is not switched on, once it is on, the drivers are obliged in practice to accept the job and not to carry out other activities
the drivers and couriers are under the operational control of the company and subject to the standard terms imposed upon them by the company (each driver cannot negotiate their own contract).
An interesting argument was made on behalf of Addison Lee, namely that even when having accepted a job and logged into the app, couriers could refuse to complete the work, for example if the parcel was too heavy or if they had a puncture. The EAT held that this was exceptional. In reality there was “gentle pressure” to get the job done.
