What happened?

The Respondent in GT Gettaxi manages an app that allows the public to request black cabs. The Claimant (a taxi driver) had previously used the app from 2015 to 2017, but when he requested to use it again in 2020, this was denied. He alleged that the Respondent’s refusal to allow him to use the app was because he had made a protected disclosure, and so his employment status was a key issue in whether this claim could proceed. Ultimately, it was decided that the Claimant had been correctly identified as self-employed, so he could not bring a claim in respect of his alleged protected disclosure.

The Respondent in Bolt operates a private hire app which engages around 100,000 drivers in the UK as self-employed contractors. Around 10,000 drivers joined a group claim, alleging that they should in fact have been engaged as workers and, as such, they were entitled to receive the national minimum wage and paid holiday. The Employment Tribunal agreed, and whilst no decision has yet been made as to the awards payable, the solicitors acting for the claimants have reported that they believe the claim to be worth around £200 million.

The Respondent in Addison Lee also operates a private hire app and engages around 7,500 drivers in the UK as self-employed contractors. In 2017, the Employment Tribunal had ruled that three Addison Lee drivers were workers [5]. However, Addison Lee argued that the 2017 judgment did not apply to 700 drivers who brought subsequent claims in respect of their employment status. The Tribunal disagreed, holding that working practices had not changed significantly in the years since the 2017 judgment.

Why were different outcomes reached?

Claims in respect of employment status are notoriously fact-specific. It’s possible that one individual engaged by a company on the same written terms as another individual may be deemed to be a worker whereas the other isn’t, because employment status is based on the day-to-day reality of the relationship. Talking in general terms, though, an important issue in each of these cases was the level of control exerted over the claimants.

In GT Gettaxi, the Claimant treated the app as an “additional extra” to their work as a black cab driver in London. Between 2015 and 2017, 5% of his total earnings had been made via the app. Whilst he was subject to TfL’s requirements in respect of accepting journeys, for example, the Respondent itself did not impose those controls; TfL’s regulations state that drivers are not permitted to refuse to take a passenger if their destination is within 12 miles (or one hour), but the Respondent itself did not impose penalties for rejecting work or for cancelling once a journey had already been accepted. Cancellations were discouraged by the Respondent, but not prevented. The Claimant was also free to choose his own route to a passenger’s destination.

In Bolt, drivers were required to comply with minimum service standards and were required to choose the most direct and efficient route to the passenger’s destination; the Tribunal heard evidence that drivers may have their pay docked and be temporarily blocked from using the app for failing to do so. Bolt monitors a passenger’s journey throughout, and whilst drivers were not required to accept a booking offered to them (and could cancel freely even after accepting a booking) this was not always communicated effectively to drivers.

In Addison Lee, the Tribunal found that although drivers were free to reject work offered to them, they may be subject to sanctions as a result of doing so. Such sanctions were indicative of a high level of control over the drivers.

Bolt: the question of what is working time

Interestingly, Bolt announced in August 2024 that it would start to pay drivers the national minimum wage and holiday pay, despite continuing to assert that they were not workers. Drivers also had the option of opting into a pension scheme from May 2024. The question therefore arose as to what these payments should be based on: are drivers working when waiting for a booking, or just when completing a journey? The answer, said the Employment Tribunal, depends. Those individuals who had been told that they were not required to accept a booking when it was offered, and that they would not receive any penalty for failing to complete a satisfactory number of journeys, were only working when they had accepted a journey. However, those individuals who hadn’t been clearly told this were working when they were in the area in which they were licensed to work and had the Bolt app open, waiting to receive a booking. As such, Bolt’s decision to pay them the national minimum wage and grant paid holiday in respect of time driving wasn’t enough; this should also have included time spent waiting to receive a booking.

What about multi-apping?

Nowadays, private hire drivers are frequently registered with numerous apps, meaning they may accept a booking as, for example, an Uber driver one minute and as a Bolt driver the next. This is called “multi-apping”. Are drivers also working when scrolling through numerous private hire apps, waiting for a booking to come through on one of them? That question isn’t one that the Employment Tribunal has yet had to grapple with, and as such the status of individuals when multi-apping hasn’t yet been determined.

[1] Uber BV v Aslam & Others [2021] UKSC 5

[2] Johnson v GT Gettaxi (UK) Ltd [2024] EAT 162

[3] Bandi & Others v Bolt Operations OU & Bolt Services UK Ltd (2206953/2021 & others)

[4] Afshar & Others v Addison Lee Limited (3306435/2020 & others)

[5] Lange & Others v Addison Lee Limited (2208029/2016 & others)