In the recent case of Johnson v GT Gettaxi, the Employment Appeal Tribunal have found that the Claimant was not a worker of the Respondent.
The Respondent operated an app which enables member of the public to order black cabs, rather than hailing them down on the street. The app allowed licensed black cab drivers to sign up.
The Claimant was a licensed black cab driver and used the app between April 2015 and 2017. When he reapplied to use the app again in 2020, he was refused. He alleged that this was because he had made protected disclosures.
Whistleblowing claims can only be brought by employees and workers. Therefore, a preliminary issue in this case is whether the black cab driver was a ‘worker’ under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In contrast with the case of Uber v Aslam, where the Supreme Court found that the Uber drivers were workers, in this case, it was held that the Claimant was not a worker of the Respondent. This was because the black cab drivers were in business on their own account, and use of the app was just a means of increasing business.
The following points were relevant (and differed from the Uber case) in reaching this conclusion:-
- No penalties were imposed by the Respondent for rejection of fares offered.
- The drivers were free to follow routes they considered best; there was no failure for not following the GPS route.
- The Claimant was given limited details about the passengers on accepting fares. There was nothing to stop the Claimant from making his own arrangements with the passengers, outside of the app, for other journeys.
- Drivers were still able to work in the traditional way, in addition to work obtained via the app. Uber drivers could not operate in the same way.
If you have any queries regarding employment status, for example whether an individual is likely to be deemed an employee, worker or otherwise, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Employment team.
