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.
Sponsor Licence Compliance: Key considerations & how to be audit ready
Join us for the third in our series of mini webinars on post Brexit immigration about sponsor licence compliance.
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.
Linking ESG and Executive Pay
How does a business go about embedding a focus on strong ESG performance into the structures and culture of its organisation?
Amelia Goodwin and Georgina O'Sullivan write for Pharmacy Business on managing employee performance
Why contractors should prioritise performance management of employees as a regular feature of their business strategy.
The UK’s New Skilled Worker & Intra-Company Visa Routes: a closer look
Taking a closer look at the UK’s new visas to assist UK businesses.
Have your say: MAC call for evidence on Intra-Company Visa Route
The MAC, has launched a call for evidence on the Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) immigration route.
Sleep-in workers not entitled to NMW for entire shift
A unanimous ruling by The Supreme Court in the Royal Mencap v Tomlinson-Blake and another case.
Amelia Goodwin quoted by People Management, Home Care Insight and Care Home Management on the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling in Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake
The court found that care providers do not have to pay the minimum wage to staff for time that they are asleep but on call during shifts.
It’s all about the data…why has the government delayed hospitality reopening again?
Michael Powner quoted by People Management on the implications of Uber's decision to pay drivers minimum wage
Uber’s rollout of living wage will put further pressure on other gig economy firms to follow suit.
How to manage redundancies: employee rights on redundancy
What rights do employees have when a redundancy exercise is carried out?
Michael Powner quoted by Personnel Today on the implications of the Uber Supreme Court ruling on the gig economy
While the case is fact specific, the decision is likely to be a very persuasive authority for tribunals ruling on others in the gig economy.
Michael Powner quoted by Bloomberg, PA Media and People Management on the Supreme Court's ruling on the employment status of Uber drivers
The Supreme Court unanimously found that Uber drivers are workers under UK law.
Nick Hurley quoted by the Daily Mirror on 'no jab, no job' policies
'No jab, no job' may seem clear and concise, but mandatory policies requiring the Covid-19 vaccine are far from straightforward.
How to manage redundancies: practical steps
What are the practical considerations when carrying out a redundancy exercise?
EMI share options, Covid-19, and Brexit – where are we now?
What are the new measures to employers operating EMI schemes that have been affected by the pandemic?
How to manage redundancies: initial planning
What should employers consider when preparing for a redundancy situation?
Post-Brexit Implications for UK/EU Business Travel
How companies need to monitor the activities of their employees on business trips in a post-Brexit world.
Trevor Bettany quoted by People Management on the use of 'fire and rehire' tactics
Trevor Bettany considers questions around the legalities of ‘fire and rehire’ tactics.
Understanding Rules of Origin under the Brexit Agreement
The UK-EU TCA came into effect on 31st December 2020, what does it mean for importers and exporters? and what does Rules of Origin mean?