UK Bolt drivers win legal claim to be classed as workers

[Pelican Press 0]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

*** Bolt drivers win legal claim to be classed as workers

*** drivers working for ride-hailing and food delivery app Bolt should be classed as staff rather than self-employed, the Employment Tribunal has ruled.

Being classified as workers means more than 100,000 Bolt drivers are now entitled to better workplace conditions and protections for the first time under *** employment law, including the right to be paid the national minimum wage, and to receive statutory minimum holiday pay and rest breaks, as well as protection from unlawful discrimination and whistleblowing.

The Employment Tribunal specifically rejected Bolt’s claim that drivers are self-employed contractors running their own businesses, finding instead that the terms and conditions the firm applies to its relationship with drivers, as well as the level of control it has over their day-to-day work, means they are in fact workers.

“Overwhelmingly, the power ***** with Bolt,” said the

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

. “There is nothing in the relationship which demands, or even suggests, agency. The agency notion is posited simply to defeat the obvious interpretation which the facts invite – that Bolt employs the drivers to provide their labour in furtherance of its transportation business.”

It added: “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.”

While Bolt currently only pays its drivers for time spent on trips, the Employment Tribunal also ruled they should be paid for time spent logged into the Bolt app, providing they are not also logged into apps for other private hire operators such as Uber or Deliveroo – a practice those operators refer to as “multi-apping”.

Lawyers from Leigh Day representing the drivers said the employment tribunal decision – which was handed down on 8 November 2024 following a three-week hearing in September – could lead to drivers receiving collective compensation worth more than £200m. They added that, on average, drivers could be entitled to compensation of over £15,000.

While the ruling means Bolt will need to provide paid holiday and ensure drivers earn the minimum wage for any periods they work, the Employment Tribunal will hold a further session to decide exactly how much compensation the drivers are entitled to.

“We are very pleased that the employment tribunal has found in favour of our Bolt driver clients,” said Leigh Day employment team solicitor Charlotte Pettman, who represented roughly 15,000 current and former Bolt drivers in their legal action.

“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 also welcomed the ruling, adding: “It’s satisfying to know that our hard work and long hours have been recognised, and that we can ****** on for better pay and conditions, and compensation will make a huge difference to my family’s life.”  

A spokesperson for Bolt – which is currently reviewing its options, including grounds to appeal the decision – said: “Drivers are at the heart of what we do, and we have always supported the overwhelming majority’s choice to remain self-employed, independent contractors, protecting their flexibility, personal control and earning potential.”

Long-running legal disputes

The legal claim from Bolt drivers followed the *** Supreme Court determining in February 2021 that Uber drivers – who were also represented by Leigh Day – should be classified as workers rather than self-employed. That specific legal challenge was brought by private hire driver Yaseen Aslam and his union, the App Drivers and Couriers Union (ADCU).

However, although Uber agreed in March to pay its *** drivers the minimum wage, it said this would only apply for the time they are assigned to trips, rather than,

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, from the time they log in to the app.

Commenting on the latest Employment Tribunal hearing decision regarding Bolt – which explicitly noted that drivers should be paid for all time spent logged into the app – ADCU general secretary Zamir Dreni said it “vindicates our position on working time and demonstrates that neither Bolt nor Uber have never fully complied with the Supreme Court ruling, which means that between 40% and 60% of true working time ******** unpaid.

“Rather than force workers back into courts for another decade of litigation, the government needs to step in now and fix the current employment bill, which omitted protections for gig workers, so that Britain’s hard-working minicab drivers and delivery couriers get the protections they deserve.”

However, different rulings related to the working relationship between drivers and other operators have come to different conclusions.

In June 2021, the *** Court of Appeal ruled in a case – originally brought by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) in 2017 – that Deliveroo riders are self-employed, further finding they do not have the right to organise via a trade union.

Despite this, one judge conceded that the

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

could be seen as “counterintuitive” because “it is easy to see that riders might benefit from organising collectively to represent their interests, as against Deliveroo”.

Another judge agreed that the decision “may seem counterintuitive”, adding: “I quite accept that there may be other cases where, on different facts and with a broader range of available arguments, a different result may eventuate.”

Lord Justice Underhill added that the Uber case, which largely revolved around ***-specific employment law, had no bearing on this Deliveroo case because it did not engage Article 11 of the ********* Convention on Human Rights (which protects the right to form and join trade unions), adding that unlike Deliveroo, “Uber did not rely on any substitution clause” that meant others are allowed to complete the work.

In September 2022, the IWGB once again appealed the ruling, arguing that riders have been denied collective bargaining rights and once again seeking to establish their worker status. However, this was

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, which noted the way riders work with Deliveroo is inconsistent with an employment relationship.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

#Bolt #drivers #win #legal #claim #classed #workers

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up