Cases2207566/2021

Claimant v Addison Lee Limited

6 January 2025Before Employment Judge HyamsWatfordhybrid

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagespartly succeeded

The tribunal found that non-partner drivers who rented vehicles from the respondent group were workers when logged on via Shamrock software. Partner drivers (those who owned vehicles) were workers only when they had accepted a specific job. This determination of worker status means claimants succeeded in principle on their worker status claims, but remedy has not yet been determined. Further hearing required to calculate amounts.

Holiday Paypartly succeeded

The tribunal concluded that non-partner drivers were entitled to holiday pay calculated on the basis of time logged on (not just time on jobs), and that where drivers were not paid for leave, they were entitled to carry leave forward until termination. The tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that the 12-week fixed-term contracts created breaks in service. Quantum to be determined at a further hearing.

National Minimum Wagepartly succeeded

The tribunal determined that non-partner drivers' working time for NMW purposes included time logged on (not just time on jobs). The tribunal concluded in principle that claimants were entitled to the national minimum wage for those hours and rejected the respondent's arguments about the effect of purported 'holiday pay' and rental credits. Specific entitlements to be determined at a further hearing.

Facts

This was a preliminary hearing concerning 11 test claimants who worked as drivers for Addison Lee in various capacities (standard passenger, executive, owner/partner, and courier drivers). The central issue was whether they were workers under ERA 1996, WTR, and NMWA, and if so, when. The hearing followed an earlier tribunal judgment in Lange v Addison Lee (2017) which had found drivers to be workers. The respondent argued that changes made after 2017, particularly after June 2021, meant drivers were no longer workers or that 12-week fixed-term contracts created breaks in service. Claimants argued they remained workers throughout and that logged-on time (not just time on jobs) was working time.

Decision

The tribunal found that non-partner drivers who rented vehicles from the respondent group were workers when logged on to the respondent's Shamrock software. Partner drivers (those who owned their vehicles) were workers only when they had accepted a specific job and that job had not ended. The tribunal rejected the respondent's arguments that the introduction of 12-week fixed-term vehicle rental agreements created genuine breaks in service. The tribunal determined principles for holiday pay and NMW entitlement but directed a further hearing to determine specific amounts owed to the test claimants.

Practical note

Logged-on time for app-based workers who rent vehicles from their putative employer constitutes working time, distinguishing them from genuinely independent contractors; attempts to circumvent worker protections through artificial fixed-term contracts will be looked through by tribunals applying substance over form.

Legal authorities cited

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5Lange v Addison Lee [2017] (Employment Tribunal)Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2023] UKSC 33King v Sash Window Workshop [2018] ICR 693Smith v Pimlico Plumbers [2022] EWCA Civ 70Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services [2006] ICR 932Lyddon v Englefield Brickwork Ltd [2008] IRLR 198British Airways plc v Williams [2012] ICR 847Marshall v Southampton and South West Area Health Authority (No 2) [1993] ICR 893

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.13ERA 1996 s.23ERA 1996 s.23(4A)WTR reg 13WTR reg 14WTR reg 13AWTR reg 16WTR reg 30Employment Rights Act 1996 s.230(3)(b)Working Time Regulations 1998

Case details

Case number
2207566/2021
Decision date
6 January 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
13
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Driver (various: standard passenger driver, executive driver, owner/partner driver, courier driver)

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister