ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case Number 4110018/2021 heard at Edinburgh on & July 2022 Employment Judge d’Inverno Mr R Bartosik v Uber Scot Limited — 2022

The claim was a complaint under s.11 ERA 1996 that Uber Scot Limited failed to provide Mr Bartosik with a written statement of particulars. The respondent accepted that no written statement was given at the start of the engagement, but argued that the Driver Terms, the Uber 101 slides and later emails satisfied the statutory requirements through ss.2(2), 2(4) and 7A ERA 1996. The tribunal rejected the claimant's submission that the terms could not be relied on because he said he had not read them before clicking "yes, I agree", preferring Mr Green's evidence that the button could only be reached after scrolling through the terms.

The tribunal held that the Driver Terms were a written contract given at the beginning of the engagement and that, for most matters, the respondent's duty under s.1 ERA 1996 was met either by the terms themselves or by reasonably accessible documents. It found that the claimant's name, the start date, remuneration, pay intervals, hours, holiday entitlement, sickness-related leave, pension, other benefits, notice, job description, expected duration, workplace address, work outside the UK, training entitlement, and the substance of the disciplinary and grievance information were adequately covered by the documents relied on.

However, the tribunal found failures in relation to the company name and worker name under s.1(3)(a), any other paid leave under s.1(4)(d)(ii)(a), the probationary period under s.1(4)(ga), collective agreements under s.1(4)(j), training the worker was required to complete under s.1(4)(m), other training not paid for by the employer under s.1(4)(n), and aspects of the note on disciplinary procedures. It accordingly recorded that the respondent had failed in its duties under s.1 and s.3 ERA 1996 in those respects, but otherwise had complied.

On remedy, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to financial compensation because he had brought no substantive claim listed in Schedule 5 to the Employment Act 2002. It therefore made no monetary award, but it did deem the missing particulars to have been included in the statement under s.12 ERA 1996.