Page 14 - Welcome Packet News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

On the facts found in the present case, the employment tribunal (the ET) had been entitled to find that the respondent drivers were ‘workers’ who worked for Uber London under ‘worker’s contracts’, within the meaning of the statutory definition (s 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996). The Supreme Court (the court), in dismissing Uber’s appeal, held that that had been the only conclusion which the ET could reasonably have reached and, accordingly, it affirmed the conclusion of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and that of the majority of the Court of Appeal, that the ET had been entitled to decide both questions in the respondents’ favour. Further, the court held that the ET had note erred in finding that: (i) periods during which its three conditions were met constituted ‘working time’ for the purpose of the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833; (ii) drivers’ working hours should be classified as ‘unmeasured work’, and (iii) the respondents’ working

West ridingUnited kingdomCity ofMingeleyv pennock ivoryLady ardenAllonbyv accringtonJivrajv hashwaniFraser campbellNivellesv matzakPraterv cornwall county councilCarmichaelv national powerDecision of the courtCivil divisionRossendale collegeByrne brothers formwork ltdv bairdPimlico plumbers ltd