In person For the v Brenda Moore, Director PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021

The claimant worked as a driver for M1 Executive Travel Limited from February 2012. There was no written contract. He was told he would be self-employed for tax purposes, but he was also told he would be working full-time for the respondent. In practice, the arrangement required him to be available 24 hours a day from Monday to Friday, with the respondent taking account of his start and finish times when allocating work. Each driver rented a car from the owners of the respondent for £200 per week, and the respondent deducted commission and other fees from passenger income before making weekly payments to drivers.

The tribunal found that the respondent controlled the way the work was done. Drivers were told to arrive at pick-up addresses 15 minutes early, dress smartly and wear a tie, and use an M1-branded board for airport pick-ups. Jobs were allocated by text or phone, drivers had to do the work personally, and they could not substitute another driver. The claimant was generally entitled not to work on a day if he gave advance notice, but he could not simply fail to turn up without notice. Weekend availability also had to be indicated in advance. The claimant was not permitted to drive for other operators, and the tribunal accepted that even the limited work he did for family and friends had to be booked through the respondent.

Applying the approach in Uber BV and Others v Aslam and Others, the tribunal held that the reality of the arrangement was that the claimant was a worker under section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996. It found that once he made himself available for work, his choice whether to accept bookings was constrained by the respondent, that he was required to perform personally, that remuneration and conditions were imposed by the respondent, and that the transport services were tightly defined and controlled. The tribunal said that, although there was no app as in Uber, the respondent exercised sufficient control and the claimant was in a position of subordination and dependency. It also said that, if employee status had to be decided, it would not have found him to be an employee because mutuality of obligation was not established.

This was a preliminary hearing on worker status and jurisdiction only. The tribunal recorded that it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's unpaid wages and holiday pay claims, but it did not decide the substantive merits of those claims or award any remedy.