Background:

The claimants brought claims relating to the payment of national minimum wage. This related to the work they carried out using the app run by the respondents, Bolt.  Bolt is an app, much like others, which allow for private hire services of cars also known as ‘ride-hailing’. There are over 100,000 drivers registered with the app in the United Kingdom. The issue was whether those using the app and undertaking the ‘journeys’ as they are stated within the app are classified as workers and thus entitled to national minimum wage.

Outcome:

The Tribunal found that when an individual is within an area in which they are licenced to operate and had their Bolt app switched on then the claimants were employed by the second named respondent as workers within the meaning of the legislation.   Additionally, when they complied with the two factors above and were also ready and willing to accept offers of trips and they were not ‘multi-apping’ [which is where individuals are on multiple ride-hail apps at one time] then they working under the contracts as a worker and thus entitled to the national minimum wage.

The Tribunal referred to the decisions in the Uber case up to and including the decision of the Supreme Court. They held that the period of work and the contact came into existence when the driver, within the territory, switched on the app and that they were ready and willing to accept the trips/journeys.  This was seen to allow for an irreducible minimum of obligation as required for a worker contract. The same analysis arose in relation to those on the Bolt app.

That being said, with the sample claimants the Tribunal held that the above applied for six of them as Bolt did not convey to those drivers any decision to relax its acceptance rate terms which links into the irreducible minimum of obligation. However, for two of the claimants such relaxation of the acceptance rate did arise and so the minimum obligation was not established for those two claimants.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Yet another case relating to the gig-economy and the status of those undertaking work on the platforms. Much like the Uber case this has sided with those undertaking the trips (or journeys as they are stated on Bolt) finding that they are workers. However, it is interesting that there is scope, as seen with two of the sample claimants, to not have a finding of worker status when the acceptance rate terms are relaxed thus moving them out of the minimum obligation needed for a worker contract.  This may be something that is used as the basis for new terms and conditions for such platforms to avoid worker status and the benefits that come with it for the drivers but the costs for the platform.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Bandi-and-others-v-Bolt-decision.pdf