The London Central Employment Tribunal has held that Uber drivers are not self-employed but are workers for the purposes of the statutory rights under Working Time Regulations 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and whistleblowing rights under the GB Employment Rights Act 1996.

In essence, Uber argued that they were simply and app firm and their online platform enabled drivers to meet passengers and that Uber was a client of the drivers. The Tribunal found this notion "absurd". The Tribunal found Uber was not in reality in the app business but was a transportation business.

"The essential bargain between driver and organisation is that, for reward, the driver makes himself available to, and does, carry Uber passengers to their destinations."

Tribunal went on to find a number of issues pointed to the drivers being under the control of Uber whilst they have the app switched on and are available to pick up passengers. The fact that drivers can largely set their own hours and don't have to accept work means the drivers would not fit the definition of employees and qualify for most Employment Rights Act rights. The test for 'worker' is less onerous and the degree of control over the way drivers operate, how payment is made and several other factors led the Tribunal to conclude the drivers met the definition of workers and are entitled to protections afforded to that category.

The Tribunal also found that the relationship between the drivers and Uber was clearly "not a contract at arm's length between two independent business undertakings." They are recruited and vetted by Uber and do not market themselves to the world - all their work comes via the Uber app.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/aslam-and-farrar-v-uber-reasons-20161028.pdf