Overview
The primary matter considered in this employment tribunal case was whether Bolt drivers were classed as self-employed or workers.
The Employment Rights Act 1996, section 230(3) defines a worker as:
“an individual who has entered into or works under a contract or any other contract whether express or implied and whether oral or in writing whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual”.
In recent years, we have seen several high profile cases examine employment status; whether it is between determining if someone is self employed or a worker (as in this case), or if they are an employee or work. It is a complex area of law, but the case rulings do provide clarity in how the law is to be applied.
The Circumstances
Bolt Operations OU & Others is a company that offers ride-hailing, shared cars, scooters and food and grocery delivery services. Following the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Uber v Aslam and others in 2021, which ruled that Uber drivers were workers not self-employed, Bolt drivers raised a claim against Bolt Operations OU & Others making the same claim.
Individuals who are self-employed have limited employment rights, whereas a worker would qualify the national minimum wage, paid annual leave, rest breaks and having a maximum working week and may even qualify statutory sick pay depending upon the circumstances.
The claim argued that they should be classed as workers and not self-employed, and therefore be entitled to the national minimum wage and holiday pay.
The Judgement
The tribunal determined that the Bolt drivers are workers. This decision was reached using a test which determines if an individual is considered a worker. Some of the test findings were as follows:
-
Bolt has control over the service provided by the drivers including setting the driver’s fares, collecting fees, applying a service fee, and in some instances the company can block a driver from using the app and only Bolt can unblock this.
-
The effort of Bolt to create the right to substitution using their Bolt Link function was rejected as it is up to the company to allocate the trip to the next driver in line rather than the drivers substituting the work themselves.
-
The drivers are not running a business of which Bolt are their customers, rather Bolt are purchasing the drivers’ labour strictly on its ‘take it or leave it’ terms.
The ruling means that the Bolt drivers will now have a number of employment rights including being paid national minimum wage, entitlement to holiday pay, and protection against unlawful deduction of wages. A hearing to determine the issue of compensation will be held next year.
Key Learnings
Understand the difference between all types of employment status:
Employers must learn what classifies an individual as a worker, employee or self-employed and act according to the law when employing people. Applying the wrong status can have significant implications not just in terms of employment rights, but also from a tax perspective. If you need help working out the status of an individual for the purpose of tax, the government website has a useful tool.
Regularly review contracts and working practices:
These should be reviewed regularly to ensure they are legally compliant. Remember custom and practice can have implications for employment rights. These are unwritten rules that become an accepted part of the employment relationship over time.
