BOLT RULING SIGNALS LEGAL SHIFT: What does it mean for private hire drivers, operators and ‘multi-apping’?
A recent Employment Tribunal ruling classified ride-hailing firm Bolt’s drivers as workers rather than self-employed, granting them key rights such as minimum wage and holiday pay and challenging the gig economy's prevailing business model.
Here in this article, Claire Brook, Employment Law Partner, and Layla Barke-Jones, Dispute Resolution Partner at Aaron & Partners, takes us through that decision and argues that it signals a growing shift in legal attitudes towards platform-based workforces – and could have far-reaching consequences for industries relying on self-employed contractors.
On 8 November, the Employment Tribunal handed down judgment that Bolt drivers are workers, rather than self-employed. This ruling aligns with the 2021 Supreme Court decision in Uber v Aslam, which also found that Uber drivers are workers. This case is just the latest in a line of cases regarding the status of individuals working in the gig economy, particularly within the private hire sector.
The case focused on whether Bolt drivers, like Uber drivers, should be classified as ‘workers’ under UK employment law. The tribunal's judgment marks a continued shift toward identifying the status of individuals working in the gig economy as workers.
This new ruling is the latest high-profile decision relevant to the current debates surrounding those working in the gig economy and private hire sector and whether they qualify for worker status.
To determine whether a driver is a worker, the tribunal will look at the operator’s control over the driver, whether a driver must carry out the journey themselves (and provide personal service under a contract with the operator) or whether the driver operates such that the operator is their customer. The tribunal also considers a number of factors including the level of control exercised on the driver by the operator and what if any obligations are placed on the driver.
Background - Uber v Aslam
The Uber v Aslam case set a precedent by ruling that Uber drivers were workers, not self-employed, highlighting the degree of control Uber exercised over drivers, including how fares are set, the provision of support, restricting the contact between driver and passenger, and the use of an app for work allocation. This was a landmark decision that set a legal framework for similar cases within the gig economy.
The Supreme Court applied a number of tests to determine whether Uber’s drivers were workers. Notably, they found that Uber’s control over their drivers was indicative of worker status. It was also found that a driver cannot substitute their services (i.e. have another driver carry out the journey on their behalf) and therefore must undertake their work personally. The Supreme Court also noted that the drivers’ contracts attempted to preclude worker status with sham clauses, and it was necessary to look beyond the contracts to determine the true nature of the drivers’ working status.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Uber must consider their drivers to be working “as soon as he was within [London], had the app switched on and was ready and willing to accept trips”. This ‘working time’ period is essential for the calculation of Working Time (and associated rights) and National Minimum Wage; however, Uber drivers continue to complain that this has not been adopted, with Uber deeming ‘working time’ to only be when a driver is completing a journey.
This judgment has set a precedent for tribunal rulings relating to worker status and has highlighted a number of issues with how certain operators engage their drivers. The ruling does not however automatically result in all private hire drivers being classified as workers. The important factor remains looking at the individual business model and controls within each company. For those operators who continue to operate with the services of self-employed drivers, they should not be affected by such rulings, but it should act as a basis for continuously analysing driver relationships.
The Bolt judgment
Bolt faced a group action from a number of its drivers who argued that they were workers, whereas Bolt resisted such claims on the basis that the drivers were self-employed. The tribunal rejected Bolt’s arguments for a number of reasons and instead ruled that its drivers were workers.
Employment Tribunal Ruling
The tribunal ruled that under the business models used by Bolt the test for worker test was satisfied identifying that the claimants were required to work personally under contracts with Bolt and were not running businesses of which Bolt was their customer.
The tribunal identified that Bolt exerted control, the drivers provided personal service and that, for some of the claimants, the necessary level of obligation was satisfied. The tribunal examined issues such as setting the driver’s fares, collecting fees, applying a service fee, dictating contractual terms and imposing driver standards. The tribunal found that Bolt could block drivers from using the app and could reallocate work to other drivers.
Applying the tests set out in Uber v Aslam the tribunal concluded that the presence of all the elements on “take it or leave it terms” were such as to constitute that the drivers were to be classed as workers.
This new ruling for Bolt drivers adds to the growing body of case law, signalling a shift in the legal landscape regarding the gig economy. It underscores the need for businesses in the sector to reconsider their employment practices and whether their drivers qualify for worker status. It also suggests that other companies in the gig economy may face similar legal scrutiny in the future.
What about multi-‘apping’?
‘Multi-apping’ is where a driver will use multiple apps to offer their services (so registered with a number of private hire operators and online with a number through different apps at once), mostly to increase their chances of receiving a journey request and being able to take journeys at a convenient location. The claimants did not seek a finding that they were working whilst ‘multi-apping’, therefore the findings of the tribunal were confined to drivers who were not ‘multi-apping’.
It was acknowledged that there would be practical difficulties arising from knowing whether a driver was ‘multi-apping’ and this would need to be decided on evidence on a case-by-case basis. This could also lead to issues when determining a driver’s ‘working time’ period on each app for the purpose of calculating National Minimum Wage.
This will be a challenge for both individuals and private hire operators to consider and is likely to be an issue that could give rise to further litigation in future claims.
What does this mean for drivers?
From a driver’s perspective there is not a one size fits all solution. Some drivers prefer the greater flexibility and can choose when they provide services and whether they provide services or send a substitute in their place; there is no statutory limit to the number of hours services may be provided. Many operators allow self-employed drivers to decide the fares to charge too.
If a driver has worker status, they are entitled to a number of rights such as National Minimum Wage, holiday pay, statutory rest breaks and you may be entitled to certain statutory leave and statutory sick pay. However, they will also be required to provide services personally and may be subject to additional controls stipulated by the operator.
What does this mean for operators?
Operators will need to consider carefully how they wish to engage their drivers. There is significant risk that in the event of a group claim for worker status an operator will be faced with the costs of defending litigation and may potentially be subject to a finding of worker status, which could result in back payment of entitlements and interest. If an operator wishes to require individuals to perform services personally, exert control over the way their drivers work, they need to accept that they will be liable for the entitlements and protections that accompany worker status. It may be necessary to increase fare prices to account for this.
Operators who wish to continue engaging self-employed drivers may need regularly review their practices and evaluate their business models and contracts to ensure that they accurately reflect the reality of the relationship with their drivers as self-employed. This will help reduce the chance of a worker status claim.
Upcoming Tribunal decisions
It is also worth keeping an eye out for further judgments as there are a number of similar actions currently being pursued against other private hire operators.
Claimant law firms are specifically targeting the Private Hire Industry and have actively promoted drivers to join claims against a number of large private hire operators. A three-week Employment Tribunal began on 28 October 2024 against Addison Lee to determine whether 700 of their drivers should be classed as workers. A similar claim against Ola was set to be heard on 12 November 2024.
We therefore expect to see more judgments being handed down in respect of driver’s worker status in the forthcoming months and years. This could clearly shape the future of the Private Hire Industry.
Next steps
It is worth noting that Employment Tribunal judgments are not binding, and it is unknown at this stage if the Bolt decision will be appealed.
The decision will have significant implications for the private hire industry but will be of note across all industries which are engaging individuals who contract on a self-employed basis.
