" "

End of the road for Uber’s consultants

16 Nov 2016
by Sharma Solicitors

Has Uber caused a car crash for all consultants?

Consultants, and employers who use them – dont panic!

The London Employment Tribunal case, Aslam & others –v- Uber BV Central, October 2016, did make an emergency stop on Uber using its drivers as self-employed consultants or contractors.

But it did not drive a coach and horses through employers hiring any type of consultant.

So, despite the need for a contract of employment, it’s not the case that all consultants or contractors are now employees.

The law still sees a difference between how consultants, employees, and workers can be treated by employers and says each enjoys different levels of benefits and protection.

Thanks to S94 (1) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), an employee has the most protection, then comes workers while consultants have the least.

An employee works under a contract and benefits from the right not to be unfairly dismissed after two years.

A worker does not have unfair dismissal benefits but does have some such as the right to holidays and the right not to suffer from unlawful deductions from wages (S13 ERA).

Testing employees, workers and contractors

The question then is how do you know which working person is an employee, worker or consultant? The law has been grappling with this puzzle since the days of coach and horses.

Lawyers and judges have come up with answers while dealing with actual cases. They have devised a number of tests that they apply to the relationship between the working person and the employer.

One is the ‘control test’. This is where the court asks whether the employer has sufficient control over the working person. Can the employer tell them what work is done, how it is done, where it is done, and when it is done? If yes, the employer has an employee. But even if the employer has less control, as in the Uber case, the person may still be an employee.

Then there is the ‘mutuality of obligation’ test. Under this, the employer must provide the person with the work, and the person is under an obligation to do it. Under these circumstances, the working person is likely to be an employee.

There is ‘personal performance’. This means the working person has to do the actual work himself or herself and does not have the ‘right of substitution’ where he or she hires someone else to do it.

Another test is ‘form over substance’, where the focus is on an employment contract. Lawyers and judges see the contract as important, but will make decisions based on the ‘substance’ of the employer-person relationship rather than the ‘form’.

Uber gets it wrong

So, what is the Uber fuss about? Uber claimed their workers were consultants or contractors, who did the work through their own businesses. This would mean they did not enjoy any of the employment benefits of employers or workers. A plumber who fixes a homeowner’s boiler would be an example of that relationship.

A consultant’s benefit is that he or she can set expenses of going to work against the money receives from the work. Employees, of course, cannot recover the cost of going to and from work from their income tax.

While many people would prefer to be a consultant, and for employers it would save them national insurance contributions, HMRC, the government’s revenue service, prefers to see them as employees. To add to this, the courts and Employment Tribunals have been raining on this parade since the horse and carriage era.

So, it’s vital that employers and employees/workers/consultants get it right.

For further information, please contact Sharma Solicitors on

03454300145 or 0845300145.

Related News Stories

Executive faced a ruined career after botched sacking

Executive faced a ruined career after botched sacking

An advanced mental health practitioner was recently awarded over £60,000 after he was sacked without a fair process. An employment…

Read more
CBI scandal: what if your employee is accused of a serious crime?

CBI scandal: what if your employee is accused of a serious crime?

The CBI has been rocked by accusations of rape and sexual misconduct. With its reputation in tatters, members leaving by…

Read more
F-words at work – OK, but saying ‘baldie’ – not

F-words at work – OK, but saying ‘baldie’ – not

Swearing at work was ruled acceptable by one employment tribunal judge, while another gave out £71,000 in compensation when a…

Read more
Employer punished for unfair sex assault dismissal

Employer punished for unfair sex assault dismissal

Government agency bosses used a flawed procedure when firing a top foreign envoy for a sexual harassment accusation. The British…

Read more
Employers face legal traps over home working

Employers face legal traps over home working

Employers risk making poor and costly decisions in response to employees asking to work from their homes. Two cases have…

Read more
Employers are punished for sacking bad workers

Employers are punished for sacking bad workers

A judge slapped down an employer who failed to follow a fair procedure when sacking a nurse for being racist.…

Read more
Managers’ confused performance assessment leads to big payout

Managers’ confused performance assessment leads to big payout

A well-known clothes store's flawed promotion and assessment process landed them with a £96,208 judgement at an employment tribunal. Bristol…

Read more
Frustrated manager’s decision leads to unfair dismissal

Frustrated manager’s decision leads to unfair dismissal

An employer lost an unfair dismissal case after summarily sacking an employee rather than go through a fair procedure. London…

Read more
Protected conversations expedite dismissals

Protected conversations expedite dismissals

The government has increased the scope for employers to sack employees without the threat of court cases. The new law…

Read more
Tesco gets burned by its fire and rehire tactics

Tesco gets burned by its fire and rehire tactics

A high street giant’s attempt to cut their staff bill was slapped down recently due to employment law. The High…

Read more
Tribunal defends  cross-dressing engineer

Tribunal defends cross-dressing engineer

A landmark court ruling has boosted employment lawyers’ chances of protecting ‘sex change’ workers from harassment and unfair dismissal. Birmingham…

Read more
Government demands employees return to work  – but not just yet

Government demands employees return to work – but not just yet

Government have changed their advice on telling employees to return to the workplace due to a spike in virus infections.…

Read more
Job redundancy or unfair dismissal

Job redundancy or unfair dismissal

The looming end to the government’s job subsidies in November will lead to some cynical bosses using redundancy to victimise…

Read more
Sickness sacking is valid without medical expertise

Sickness sacking is valid without medical expertise

A rail company did not need extensive medical evidence to sack an employee for being too sick to work. Employment…

Read more
Court upholds sacking over a Christmas overtime row

Court upholds sacking over a Christmas overtime row

An employment tribunal in November 2016 decided that a company fairly dismissed a worker when her refusal to do overtime…

Read more
Good employer loses appeal in migrant right to work case

Good employer loses appeal in migrant right to work case

Foreign workers have a right to appeal if they face dismissal over doubts about their UK residency status, appeal judges…

Read more
Jaw-jaw before war-war

Jaw-jaw before war-war

New legislation compels people in a workplace dispute to talk before going into legal battle in a court. Whether they…

Read more

    Sharma Solicitors is Regulated by Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA Number: 403199)