The UK supreme court has dismissed Uber’s appeal against a landmark employment tribunal ruling that its drivers should be classed as workers with access to the minimum wage and paid holidays.
Six justices handed down a unanimous decision backing the October 2016 employment tribunal ruling that could affect millions of workers in the gig economy.
The supreme court highlighted that any attempt by organisations to draft artificial contracts aimed at side-stepping basic protections were void and unenforceable.
Judges criticised the controversial contracts Uber asked their drivers to sign, saying they “can be seen to have as their object precluding a driver from claiming rights conferred on workers by the applicable legislation”.
In the judgment, Lord Leggatt said he was “not convinced” that the contractual arrangements Uber conducted with drivers was compliant with the regulatory regime supervised by Transport for London.
James Farrar, the co-lead claimant and general secretary of the App Drivers and Couriers union, said: “This ruling will fundamentally re-order the gig economy and bring an end to rife exploitation of workers by means of algorithmic and contract trickery. Uber drivers are cruelly sold a false dream of endless flexibility and entrepreneurial freedom.
“The reality has been illegally low pay, dangerously long hours and intense digital surveillance. I am delighted that workers at last have some remedy because of this ruling, but the government must urgently strengthen the law so that gig workers may also have access to sick pay and protection from unfair dismissal.”
Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said: “No company is above the law. Uber must play by the rules and stop denying its drivers basic rights at work.
“This ruling is an important win for gig economy workers and for common decency. Sham self-employment exploits people and lets companies dodge paying their fair share of tax.”
The case began when two Uber drivers, Farrar and Yaseen Aslam, took Uber to court on behalf of a group 19 others who argued that they were employed by the San Francisco-based company, rather than working for themselves.
It is one of a string of cases challenging the self-employed status of gig-economy workers, including action against the minicab firm Addison Lee and the delivery groups CitySprint, Excel and eCourier.