Bolt drivers classified as workers, not contractors

A tribunal has ruled that Bolt drivers can be classified as workers which means the taxi hailing app will have to pay national minimum wage and holiday pay

The case at the employment tribunal was brought by six Bolt drivers, representing a sample of six typical drivers, who carry passengers for payment for Bolt with driving work allocated to them through the Bolt app.

The decision will have ramifications for up to 10,000 private hire drivers, who are part of a wider claim, and will no doubt influence the government’s review of the use of contract workers.

Bolt drivers currently work under contracts which classify them as self-employed independent contractors, which they dispute as the work they do is akin to worker status, not gig workers.

At the tribunal, the drivers argued that they were ‘employed’ by a Bolt company as ‘workers’ whenever they undertake a driving assignment and for so long as they make themselves available to do so, and are therefore entitled to be paid the national minimum wage and to receive paid annual leave and certain other benefits.

Bolt rejected this argument, stating that the company was not even a transport company but rather acted as an agent for the drivers, meaning that they did not qualify as ‘workers’ as they contracted with Bolt via the app in the capacity of self-employed independent contractors.

Bolt contended that the ‘Bolt Link’ scheme, which enabled any registered driver to have other drivers operating under their Bolt account, meant that the element of personal service essential to ‘worker’ status was negated.

The tribunal ruling stated: ‘We find that the supposed contract between the Bolt driver and the passenger is a fiction designed by Bolt (and in particular its lawyers) to defeat the argument that it has an employer/worker relationship with the driver.

‘The device is necessary since, without it, the inevitable inference is that such a relationship exists and explains the dealings between the parties.’

Employment Judge Elson rejected Bolt’s arguments on the principal and agency model, saying these reasons did not negate any driver’s obligation of personal service, and did not have any bearing on the proper legal analysis of the ‘worker’ status issue.

The tribunal concluded that in the cases of the six sample claimants that a ‘worker’ contract came into existence when the driver met the following conditions: they were in the territory in which they were licensed to operate and had the Bolt App switched on.

The crux of this reasoning was based on the general analysis in Uber BV v Aslam, namely that, where and for so long as a ‘worker’ contract exists (ie, the requisite mutuality of obligation is established), the driver is ‘working’ under a ‘worker’ contract, when they are (a) is in the territory for which they are licensed, (b) has the app switched on and (c) is ready and able to accept trips.

However, Judge Elson stressed that ‘we have not made the mistake of treating analysis of the agency model as a simple repeat of Uber…this is not Uber. There are material differences between Uber’s system and Bolt’s. We have applied our minds strictly to the evidence put before us in these proceedings. Second, we have already acknowledged that the so-called ‘gig economy’ has moved on since the Uber litigation’.

For the purposes of Working Time Regulations 1998, reg 2(1), the tribunal ruled that national minimum wage should be paid to drivers for periods ‘during which he is working, at his employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties’ and is engaged in ‘unmeasured work’. This would include ‘availability time’ when the driver is signed into the app between jobs, excluding drivers who use multiple apps.

The six Bolt claimants were represented by Leigh Day employment team solicitor Charlotte Pettman, and the law firm is handling the wider claim.

Pettman said: ‘We are very pleased that the employment tribunal has found in favour of our Bolt driver clients.

‘This judgment confirms that gig economy operators cannot continue to falsely classify their workers as independent contractors running their own business to avoid providing the rights those workers are properly entitled to. We call on Bolt to compensate our clients without further delay.’

Bolt driver Shuhel Ahmed said: ‘This is brilliant news and such a relief. I am so glad that Leigh Day has been successful with this part of the legal claim. It’s satisfying to know that our hard work and long hours have been recognised, and that we can fight on for better pay and conditions, and for compensation will make a huge difference to my family’s life.’

Leigh Day is also representing Addison Lee and Ola drivers in two parallel claims.

Visit BrAInbox today where you can find answers to questions like What does 'control' mean when working out employment status?

• School trust fined after 5-year-old's finger amputated
• Hospitality leaders hit back at employer £3.4bn NIC hike
• Government promotes early health interventions to keep people in work
• Council fined half a million after man is killed by falling tree