1

Nuzhat Tabassum Tahiya

21309015
Business Law
LAW205
Ismet Morshed (IMD)
September 13, 2023
Employer-Employee Relationship in the Context of Uber BV v Aslam
Total Word Count: 1146
Footnotes & References: 50
Without Footnotes & References: 1096
 2

Student Statement:

I have read the University’ Plagiarism Policy and I understand the consequences of a breach
of this policy.

I verify that other person’s work contained herein is fully referenced and properly attributed.
Students Signature …Nuzhat Tabassum Tahiya... Date ...13/09/2023...
 3

Employer-Employee Relationship in the Context of Uber BV v Aslam

Introduction:

In the last two decades, digital applications established by individuals and companies specializing in
providing services ranging from transportation to goods such as food, clothing, etc. have transformed not
just the global economy, but businesses at a micro level. One such transformed element is the employer-
employee relationship. To understand this, one need not look further than Uber. Uber, a ride-hailing
service based in America, operates thusly: drivers register on the Uber application, whereafter they
provide the required service to the customer, i.e., drive the riders who hail them to their desired
destination in exchange for a fee. The relationship between the drivers who sign up on the application and
the company that owns said application is, evidently, at the heart of Uber’s business model, which begs
the question: Is this a contractual relationship? Or is it merely a mediation relationship, wherein Uber acts
as an intermediary platform that hosts the drivers and assists them in connecting with passengers? The
answers may be found after a thorough analysis of the judgment of Uber BV v Aslam.

Critical Review of Uber BV v Aslam:

Uber BV v Aslam is a landmark case pertaining to employment rights in the UK. The issue of this case is:
Should Uber drivers be considered employees or independent contractors?

The Respondents are former Uber drivers Yaseen Aslam and James Farrar. They, along with several
others, in the Employment Tribunal, espoused the claim that Uber drivers be considered workers and be
entitled to certain employment rights such as national minimum wage and paid holiday, amongst other
benefits. In Uber, the Appellants countered that Uber drivers and customers who hail them enter into a
separate contract of their own while the company merely acts as an intermediary platform and not a
transportation company. They claimed that these drivers are not under their employment but rather
independent contractors whom the Uber application hosts. The UK Supreme Court found the
Respondents’ argument persuasive. It declared that Uber drivers were more suited to carry the label of
workers and not independent contractors.1

To determine the legal nature of the relationship between the drivers registered with the application and
the company the application is owned by -whether it be contractual, partnership, or that of a principal and
its agent- various facets of Uber as a company, their business model, and ultimately, the reasoning behind
the UK Supreme Court’s judgment must be appropriately dissected.

First, one must analyze the contractual relationship that exists between these two parties, if one exists at
all. Furthermore, we must look at the elements of a valid contract and apply them to the employer-
employee dynamic that exists within Uber to see if they fit. Based on the English contract law, the
Contract Act 1872 describes a contract as “an agreement enforceable by the law.” 2 Therefore, any
relationship arising out of such a legal agreement is a contractual relationship. According to the company
policy of Uber, drivers are bound to a standard written agreement that dictates the contractual terms that
govern the services performed by the drivers- terms that are non-negotiable and cannot be amended by
the drivers. There is a clear agreement and the obligation is not illegal so, suffice it to say, Uber and its
drivers are bound by a contract. As such, Uber’s insistence that it is merely a platform dedicated to
connecting drivers and passengers and that a contractual relationship exists between the drivers and the
riders is rendered moot. Clearly, the UK Supreme Court agrees with such an assessment.

1 Uber BV v Aslam (2021) UKSC 5

2 M C Kuchhal and Vivek Kuchhal, Mercantile Law (8th edn, Vikas Publishing, 2012), 8
 4

Next, one must consider the agent-principal dynamic that emerges once the driver registers with the Uber
application. According to the Contract Act, an agent is “a person employed to perform an act or to
represent another in dealings with a third party or parties.” 3 It further explains that “the person for whom
or on behalf of whom the performance is done is called the principal.” 4 Uber had argued that, as a matter
of agency, no contract was established between the driver and Uber. Against this claim, the Supreme
Court chose to direct its attention to the relationship between the driver and the passenger, or rider, to get
a full view of the picture: it concluded that Uber accepted the request of a rider not as an agent, but rather,
as a principal, as there was a contractual relationship between not the driver and the rider but between
Uber itself and the passengers. In actuality, the driver is the agent accepting the booking on behalf of the
company while the passengers are the third parties. As the function of an agent is to establish a
contractual relationship between the principal and the third party or parties, it is evident that such a
dynamic also exists within Uber, its drivers, and the riders.

Finally, besides the terms of the agreement that bind Uber and its drivers together, one must observe the
nature of the partnership and the conduct of the parties outside of the written letter of the contract.
Analyzing the policies of Uber reveals that the company asserts a rather rigid degree of control over its
drivers: not only does Uber control how much the drivers are paid for each trip, but it also has a
monopoly over the amount of service fee deducted from the fares; drivers will be penalized if they decline
too many requests, including termination of their contract; negative customer feedback and ratings may
result in Uber withdrawing the drivers’ access to the Uber application; communication is barred between
the driver and the passenger and Uber categorically discourages the forming of any sort of relationship
between the two parties.5 To wit: drivers are not given the freedom that Uber advertises to the public but
are shackled by strict rules and regulations that are not to be transgressed. This was a crucial factor in the
Supreme Court ruling in favour of the Respondents and declaring Uber drivers to be employees as
opposed to independent contractors.

Conclusion:

The UK Supreme Court, in giving its judgment, recognizes and legally enforces upon Uber the obligation
of recognizing itself as the principal and its drivers as agents to whom it is contractually bound and
compelled to have a duty of care. As such, Uber BV v Aslam is a landmark case not just for employment
rights in the UK and beyond, but also for establishing a new precedent in the classification and
categorization of the employer-employee relationship in the context of the modern world.

3 Mercantile Law (n2) 208

4 Ibid
5 Uber BV v Aslam (n1) 12
 5

References

Kuchhal M C, and Kuchhal V, Mercantile Law (8th edn, Vikas Publishing 2012)
Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, [2018] EWCA Civ 2748