Uber and Deliveroo platforms now required to play by French employment law rules?
For the first time, the highest court in France (the Cour de Cassation - the Supreme Court) has ruled on the nature of the employment relationship existing between delivery drivers and collaborative platforms such as Uber and Deliveroo which operate through a web-based app.
The French Cour de Cassation recently decided that an independent bike driver is in a subordinate relationship with the food delivery platform “Take it Easy” and that therefore an employment contract exists and has to be recognised as such between the parties (Cass. Soc. 28 Novembre 2018 n°17-20.079).
This decision was quickly followed by a decision in the Paris Court of Appeal (CA Paris 10 janvier 2019 n°18/08357) which ruled that an Uber driver operated under an employment contract.
In recent years, web platforms have been introducing radical new business models, including companies such as Uber or Deliveroo, which offer innovative services to customers and have created a new type of flexible working.
However, these new collaborative businesses that use apps to provide services to customers via independent workers for short-term engagements are also causing issues when trying to apply existing employment law to this new type of arrangement.
French legislation has slowly evolved in order to adapt to this emerging market and in doing so, to offer some protection to this new and growing category of independent workers.
Since 2016, the French employment code (articles L.7341-1 and L.7341-6) has provided that technology platforms have a social responsibility towards the independent workers who perform their professional activity. Minimum guarantees must be offered to such workers including work insurance coverage, vocational training or the right to strike.
A new bill has recently been discussed, which purports to impose the adoption of social responsibility charters by collaborative platforms, in order to define better the workers’ rights and guarantees.
The necessary recourse to the Courts
The question as to the nature of their employment status is crucial. What is at stake is whether these workers should benefit from the protection of French employment law, instead of merely being offered guarantees, if anything at all.
Unclear case law precedents
The Paris employment tribunal has recently given conflicting decisions on this issue. In December 2016, it decided that an Uber driver had to be considered an employee on the basis that the driver had received instructions from Uber, and in particular, on how to behave towards customers. It also emphasised that the driver was economically dependent upon Uber.
However, in January 2018, the same employment tribunal refused to reclassify an Uber driver’s contract into an employment contract. The employment tribunal ruled that a number of factors were inconsistent with the driver having employment status, including that Uber had no control over the hours the driver worked, there was no obligation on the driver to log on to the app nor a minimum time that he had to be logged on for and he had complete freedom to decide when he worked.
A French Supreme Court decision with significant implications
The lower court judges in the “Take it Easy” food delivery driver case put similar arguments forward. The Court of Appeal rejected the request to requalify the contract on the grounds that the driver was not bound by an exclusivity or non-competition obligation and that he remained completely free to decide whether to work or not and to determine the time slots during which he wanted to work.
The French Cour de Cassation, however, quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision and adopted different reasoning. It decided that a subordinate relationship did exist between the parties since:
- the company had put in place a geolocation system allowing the tracking of the driver’s position and the counting of the number of kilometres travelled;
- the company had disciplinary power over the drivers as “bonuses” could be awarded or the driver could be sanctioned with penalties in the case of contractual breaches (such as late deliveries, failure to respond to telephone calls, etc.).
The Court of Appeal takes a similar decision in relation to an Uber driver
Following this Supreme Court decision, the Paris Court of Appeal has recently followed a similar reasoning in its decision in a recent case regarding an Uber driver who filed a complaint after having his account deactivated by Uber.
The Court of Appeal ruled that sufficient evidence was gathered to establish a relationship of subordination between the employee and the platform (CA Paris 10 janvier 2019 n°18/08357).
It specified that the driver could not develop his own customer base outside of the app, that he was also not free to decide the price of the fares, nor the conditions under which the service was provided.
It noted that the platform could control the driver’s activity thanks to the geolocation system and that it had the power to sanction the driver by limiting or preventing his access to the app notably in case of “problematic behaviour”.
The Court of Appeal also underlined that the capacity to choose one’s working hours is not in itself inconsistent with the existence of an employment relationship.
More judicial claims to be expected
These decisions are interesting as they imply that gig workers could be considered as a new type of employee who are in fact operating under an existing relationship of subordination, albeit one that is different and evolving.
It also shows that flexibility and the mere capacity to choose when to work is not in itself inconsistent with the existence of an employment contract.
These decisions could in any event open the floodgates to more tribunal claims.
The recognition of an employment relationship has significant consequences for such companies as it imposes the payment of a minimum salary and of full social security contributions. It may lead to the payment of termination indemnities and damages for unfair dismissal or concealed employment.
On a largerscale, this could result in these companies having to reshape their organisation in order to adapt their human resources teams and establish corresponding staff representation.
The issue is that the employment status seems in itself to be conflicting with the business model imposed by those companies. This could mean that these companies are no longer able to exist in their current form if they have to play by employment law rules.
Flexible working requests: 5 tips for employers
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Acora on acquisition of Westgate IT
Westgate IT specialises in providing IT support to businesses in the South West.
Nick Hurley quoted by the Society for HR Management on the UK government's proposals to prevent workplace sexual harassment
The U.K. government introduced legislation in July 2021 for employers to take proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment on the job.
Returning to work post-lockdown: FAQs for employers
We look at some of the main issues employers may face and the key steps to consider as restrictions ease.
Covid passports - are they workable or just a shambles?
Amelia Goodwin writes for Civil Society on a recent employment tribunal ruling which found that anxiety constitutes a disability
The tribunal found that an anxiety state constitutes a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
Face coverings at work post lockdown
While the legal requirement has been lifted, employers may consider face coverings as an appropriate safety measure in certain workplaces.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Apposite Capital on acquisition of i2a Diagnostics
i2a is a leading provider of laboratory instruments, software and reagents for the clinical microbiology market in France.
Brace yourselves: dentists could be liable for actions of self-employed staff
Nick Hurley interviewed by GB News on the legal ramifications of employers insisting employees have the COVID-19 vaccine
Nick considers the potential dangers of employers setting a precedent by adopting a 'No Jab, No Job' policy.
Government to introduce duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment
Michael Powner writes for People Management and explains how employers can carry out an equal pay audit
How do employers carry out an equal pay audit?
COVID-19 Vaccination – can an employer make it compulsory for employees?
We review what legal issues to take into account when considering to make vaccination compulsory as an employer.
Changes to Right to Work Checks from 1 July 2021
EEA citizens and their family members are required to evidence immigration status in the UK, in the same way as other foreign nationals.
Changes to Right to Rent Checks from 1 July 2021
Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the right to rent checks grace period of six months will end on 30 June.
Michael Powner and Laurence Whymark write for The Caterer on the implications of the new tipping laws on the hospitality industry
Operators will soon have to pass on tips to staff without deductions.
Post-Brexit business visitors and working in France, Germany, Spain and the UK
Watch the final session in a series of webinars on post-Brexit mobility.
The EAT has held that “gender critical” beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010
The EAT has held that “gender critical” beliefs come within the definition of philosophical belief under the Equality Act
Nick Hurley quoted by the Daily Mirror on the legal implications of implementing a 'No Jab, No Job' policy
"'No jab, no job' may seem clear and concise, but whether an employer can make it mandatory is far from straightforward.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Avicenna Group on duo of pharmacy group acquisitions
The acquisition takes Avicenna to a total of 135 pharmacy branches.