The Uber decision: a straw in the wind

You can read the decision of the Employment Tribunal in Uber here. What I want to flesh out is what, at least as it seems to me, the Decision does and doesn’t do.

The Decision will not fix our malfunctioning labour market (see here for my primer). That malfunction stems from two systemic flaws in our law. First, in our tax law – which imposes on relationships that are economically equivalent substantially different burdens to tax. Second, in our employment law – which imposes on relationships that deliver to the engager of labour the same end result substantially different employee protection burdens.

As I’ve written elsewhere, we should be concerned about these flaws. Businesses worth billions of dollars are constructed to exploit the arbitrage opportunities they create. These arbitrageurs can drive out ‘good’ business actors. And the arbitrages can deliver to shareholders and customers unearned subsidies borne by taxpayers and workers. These are very material failures in capitalism, they’re not news to Government, and it’s pretty abysmal that Government has failed to respond.

The flaws cannot be resolved separately. They must be resolved together. Government is constantly (albeit tentatively) reviewing the tax flaw. Separately it is currently reviewing the employment law flaw. But there is no review that examines them together. And whatever the quality of those separate reviews their separate outcomes will not, because they cannot, resolve the malfunction. Wearing a monocle will address certain consequences of myopia but you’ll still be lousy at football.

The Uber Decision demonstrates a muscular judicial response to the employment law flaw. Such a response will be familiar to those of you who have read me on how judges have responded to tax avoidance. It should be applauded. But the Uber decision is fact specific – it has no direct read across to any other engager of labour. And, unlike in the tax avoidance sphere, rule arbitrage in the employment sphere has yet to draw any meaningful response from our legislators.

As to Uber itself, the consequences of the Decision must be examined through two lenses. One which looks backwards: what does the decision mean for the past? And one which looks forward: what does it mean for the future?

As to the past, the Decision is fact heavy and this, to a lawyer, makes a successful appeal unlikely. It’s not perfect: it majors, and compellingly, on the true factual characterisation of the relationship between Uber’s UK entity and drivers. But its analysis of the legal consequences of that factual characterisation is thin. (Indeed, it is largely to be found in a single paragraph, 94). However, this on its own is unlikely to enable the Employment Appeal Tribunal to overturn the finding that the driver is a worker. The Decision could, however, be more vulnerable on the question when the driver is a worker – at all moments when the Uber app is turned on, or only when the driver has a passenger?

If you assume the Decision survives the inevitable appeals, it will (at least until Uber changes its arrangements) deliver some employment law benefits to the affected workers. The most meaningful of these is likely, in practice, to be holiday pay. But it could also land Uber with a very substantial bill for unpaid NICs.

“Could” because the Decision only concludes that drivers are ‘workers.’ It does not examine whether they are also ’employees’, a subset of workers. If they are found, in what would have to be separate proceedings before a specialist tax tribunal, to be employees then, assuming the 40,000 drivers engaged by Uber earned an average of £600 per week, Uber would accrue a NICs bill of over £13m for every month it has operated – or continues to operate – these arrangements.

Will HMRC take the case? There’s ample reason to think it should: watch this space.

As to the future, even the Employment Tribunal recognises that Uber may adapt its arrangements to seek to avoid these tax and employment law consequences going forward.


I would expect these adaptations to look, in practice, like Uber reducing the control that it exercises over drivers. I do not understand Uber to be contemplating engaging drivers as “workers” going forward. So the gain for drivers is likely only to be temporary.

Of modest and temporary effect, and Uber specific. The Decision is little more than straw in the wind.

7 thoughts on “The Uber decision: a straw in the wind

  1. Great post, as ever, Jolyon. But your statement that “Government is constantly (albeit tentatively) reviewing the tax flaw. Separately it is currently reviewing the employment law flaw. But there is no review that examines them together” is at odds with what Ministers have said on the matter. When asked about what has happened to the review of employment status launched by Vince Cable in late 2014, and seemingly concluded (with a report to ministers) by June 2015, they have responded by saying “these issues are being considered by the recently established Cross-Government Working Group on Employment Status” (see: The minutes of the Group’s three meetings to date suggest that no land speed record is in danger. However, if the issues are “being considered” by officials from HM Treasury, HMRC, BEIS and the OFT, including consideration of the report of Cable’s review of employment status, then WHY has Theresa May asked Matthew Taylor and the RSA to carry out yet another review of pretty much the same issues?

  2. The Uber case does cover other businesses, starting with traditional franchise style taxi firms. Fares are fixed by the company, either on a meter, in which case it is council approved, or on a charge sheet.

    Then we have self employed drivers like those for Hermes, who are paid by the parcel, again fixed elsewhere. In fact, any self employed worker operating within a corporate pricing structure is in the same boat, such as Deliveroo, Domino’s Pizza and so it goes on.

    Why has this come about? Government taxes companies 14% directly for employing people with the cost of the workplace pension on top. Direct costs are now running at around 18-20%, but it gets worse. The complexity of compliance is huge and disproportionate and punishment in the event of making a mistake merciless. Solution? Turn them into sub contractors. Direct costs are slashed, as are indirect costs. Given that the wages bill is the biggest in a company, if that can be reduced by around 20%, that is a massive saving.

    It is that simple. So, stop piling administrative crap on employers, stop taxing them for employing people, stop lumbering them with endless hidden costs like sickness, holiday etc which are frequently abused and the employee’s misbehaviour is condoned by endless protectionism. I have no problem with sickness and holiday pay, but government must stop findnig newer ways of penalising business. The big boys can afford it, but it crucifies the little guys who employ far more people overall.

  3. With regard to NI liabilities is there not an argument that they are liable under S44 & 688 ITEPA? (Or the equivalent bit of the Social Security regs anyway)

  4. Pingback: Uber’s shades of grey | Koenfucius

  5. Pingback: Uber could have a £150-million-plus UK tax bill if its drivers aren’t self-employed | News World

  6. Pingback: Uber could have a £150-million-plus UK tax bill if its drivers aren’t self-employed – Business Insider – Invest Money UK

  7. Pingback: Uber could have a £150-million-plus UK tax bill if its drivers aren’t self-employed – Business Insider – Uber Driver NYC

Comments are closed.