Claimant v Uber London
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction. Claimant accepted he was a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996, not an employee under s.230(1). Only employees have the right to claim unfair dismissal under s.94(1) ERA 1996. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Facts
The claimant worked for Uber and claimed unfair dismissal. At a case management hearing in June 2023, he was asked to clarify whether he was a worker or employee. In subsequent correspondence in July 2023 and December 2024, the claimant acknowledged he was a worker, not an employee. The respondent argued this meant the tribunal had no jurisdiction as only employees can claim unfair dismissal. A strike-out warning was issued in January 2025, to which the claimant responded continuing to identify as a worker but arguing he should have protection from unfair dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim for lack of jurisdiction. The claimant accepted he was a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996, not an employee under s.230(1). Under s.94(1) ERA 1996, only employees have the right not to be unfairly dismissed. As the claimant was not an employee, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim.
Practical note
Worker status, while affording significant employment rights, does not include the right to claim ordinary unfair dismissal, which is reserved exclusively for employees under ERA 1996.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2304747/2022
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Uber London
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No