Inshur

Full text of Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment against Uber

uubbeerr

Well-Known Member
Behind the scenes they are planning a tactical withdrawal

They Should after reading the observations made by the Employment Tribunal.

Here are some Highlights of what UBER were saying and what the Employment Tribunal observations were.

UBER SAYING DRIVERS ARE NOT WORKERS :wink:

“102. … at the very latest, the driver is ‘working’ for Uber from the moment when he accepts any trip. He is then bound, subject to the cancellation policy, to complete the trip (and will not be offered any other work until he has done so) and is required immediately by Uber to undertake work essential to Uber’s delivery of the service to the passenger, namely to proceed at once to the pick-up point.”

UBER SAYING DRIVERS CAN ACCEPT LOWER FARE IF THEY WISH :confused:


“19. Strictly speaking, the figure stipulated by Uber is a recommended fare only and it is open to drivers to agree lesser (but not greater) sums with passengers. But this practice is not encouraged and if a lower fare is agreed by the driver, UBV remains entitled to its ‘Service Fee’ (see below) calculated on the basis of the recommended amount.”

UBER SAYING THEY DON'T TAKE ANY MONEY WITHOUT DRIVERS CONSENT :biggrin:

“23. … the matter is considered by ULL and a decision taken whether to compensate the passenger. … Mr Farrar explained that on several occasions Uber made deductions from his account without prior reference to him. … [when queried] Typically, the explanation was that ULL had agreed a partial refund of the fare with the passenger, resulting in a re-calculation of Mr Farrar’s payment. Sometimes he anticipated a deduction (for example, on becoming aware of a refund agreed between ULL and the passenger) but no deduction was ultimately made. …”

“… First, refunds are handled and decided upon by ULL, sometimes without even referring the matter to the driver concerned. Secondly, the organisation in practice accepts that, where it is necessary, or at least politic, to grant the passenger a refund - say because a journey took much longer than anticipated - but there is no proper ground for holding the driver at fault, it must bear the loss.”

UBER SAYING DRIVERS ARE FREE TO REJECT & CANCEL TRIPS AS MANY AS THEY LIKE :cool:

“You should accept at least 80% of trip requests to retain your account status.”

UBER SAYING EACH DRIVER IS A SMALL BUSINESS :p


“90. … general case and the written terms on which they rely do not correspond with the practical reality. The notion that Uber in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common ‘platform’ is to our minds faintly ridiculous. …”

UBER SAYING DRIVERS CAN GROW THEIR BUSINESS :rolleyes:

“… no driver is in a position to do anything of the kind, unless growing his business simply means spending more hours at the wheel. …”

UBER SAYING THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE DRIVERS :frown:

“54. … No Uber manager instructs the driver to take any particular route … In practice, however, the App’s mapping software determines the route for most purposes. … [and] if an issue arises as to whether a passenger should receive a refund on the ground that the driver did not follow the most efficient route, ULL starts from the position … that it is for the driver to justify any departure from the route indicated on the App.

55. … Passengers are required to rate drivers at the end of every trip on a simple 0-5 scoring system. Ratings are monitored and [UberX] drivers with average scores below 4.4 become subject to a graduated series of “quality interventions” aimed at assisting them to improve. “Experienced” drivers [who have undertaken 200 trips or more] whose figures do not improve to 4.4 or better are “removed from the platform” and their accounts “deactivated”.

56. Uber seeks to tackle what is seen as more serious conduct on the part of drivers through the “Driver Offence Process”. Again, provision is made for a graduated series of measures. These begin with a “warning” sent by SMS message. The ultimate penalty is ‘deactivation’.

57. Finally, we have been shown numerous instances of ULL’s practice of directing messages at drivers (individually or collectively), presented as “recommendations”, “advice”, “tips” and/or “feedback”, seeking in one way or another to modify their behaviour in order to improve the “rider experience”.”

UBER SAYING DRIVERS HAVE A CONTRACT WITH PASSENGERS NOT THEM :eek:


“… That suggests that the driver is put into contact with a possible passenger with whom he has the opportunity to negotiate and strike a bargain. But drivers do not and cannot negotiate with passengers (except to agree a reduction of the fare set by Uber). They are offered and accept trips strictly on Uber’s terms.”

UBER SAYING ITS MARKETING CAMPAIGNS ARE IN THE INTEREST OF ITS DRIVERS :rolleyes:


“89. … they are a variety of driving services. Mr Aslam does not offer such a range. Nor does Mr Farrar, or any other solo driver. The marketing self-evidently is not done for the benefit of any individual driver. Equally self-evidently, it is done to promote Uber’s name and ‘sell’ its transportation services. …”

UBER SAYING ALL IT CONTRACTS ARE WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH :smiles:


“96. … an excellent illustration of the phenomenon of which Elias J warned in the Kalwak case of “armies of lawyers” contriving documents in their clients’ interests which simply misrepresent the true rights and obligations on both sides”

UBER SAYING WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING FACTS :mad:


(1) The contradiction in the Rider Terms between the fact that ULL purports to be the drivers’ agent and its assertion of “sole and absolute discretion” to accept or decline bookings.

(2) The fact that Uber interviews and recruits drivers.

(3) The fact that Uber controls the key information (in particular the passenger’s surname, contact details and intended destination) and excludes the driver from it.

(4) The fact that Uber requires drivers to accept trips and/or not to cancel trips, and enforces the requirement by logging off drivers who breach those requirements.

(5) The fact that Uber sets the (default) route and the driver departs from it at his peril.

(6) The fact that UBV fixes the fare and the driver cannot agree a higher sum with the passenger. (The supposed freedom to agree a lower fare is obviously nugatory.)

(7) The fact that Uber imposes numerous conditions on drivers (such as the limited choice of acceptable vehicles), instructs drivers as to how to do their work and, in numerous ways, controls them in the performance of their duties.

(8) The fact that Uber subjects drivers through the rating system to what amounts to a performance management/disciplinary procedure.

(9) The fact that Uber determines issues about rebates, sometimes without even involving the driver whose remuneration is liable to be affected.

(10) The guaranteed earnings scheme (albeit now discontinued).

(11) The fact that Uber accepts the risk of loss which, if the drivers were genuinely in business on their own account, would fall upon them.

(12) The fact that Uber handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about the driver.

(13) The fact that Uber reserves the power to amend the drivers’ terms unilaterally.”
 
Last edited:

Jack Barclay

Well-Known Member
They Should after reading the observations made by the Employment Tribunal.

Here are some Highlights of what UBER were saying and what the Employment Tribunal observations were.

UBER SAYING DRIVERS ARE NOT WORKERS :wink:

“102. … at the very latest, the driver is ‘working’ for Uber from the moment when he accepts any trip. He is then bound, subject to the cancellation policy, to complete the trip (and will not be offered any other work until he has done so) and is required immediately by Uber to undertake work essential to Uber’s delivery of the service to the passenger, namely to proceed at once to the pick-up point.”

UBER SAYING DRIVERS CAN ACCEPT LOWER FARE IF THEY WISH :confused:


“19. Strictly speaking, the figure stipulated by Uber is a recommended fare only and it is open to drivers to agree lesser (but not greater) sums with passengers. But this practice is not encouraged and if a lower fare is agreed by the driver, UBV remains entitled to its ‘Service Fee’ (see below) calculated on the basis of the recommended amount.”

UBER SAYING THEY DON'T TAKE ANY MONEY WITHOUT DRIVERS CONSENT :biggrin:

“23. … the matter is considered by ULL and a decision taken whether to compensate the passenger. … Mr Farrar explained that on several occasions Uber made deductions from his account without prior reference to him. … [when queried] Typically, the explanation was that ULL had agreed a partial refund of the fare with the passenger, resulting in a re-calculation of Mr Farrar’s payment. Sometimes he anticipated a deduction (for example, on becoming aware of a refund agreed between ULL and the passenger) but no deduction was ultimately made. …”

“… First, refunds are handled and decided upon by ULL, sometimes without even referring the matter to the driver concerned. Secondly, the organisation in practice accepts that, where it is necessary, or at least politic, to grant the passenger a refund - say because a journey took much longer than anticipated - but there is no proper ground for holding the driver at fault, it must bear the loss.”

UBER SAYING DRIVERS ARE FREE TO REJECT & CANCEL TRIPS AS MANY AS THEY LIKE :cool:

“You should accept at least 80% of trip requests to retain your account status.”

UBER SAYING EACH DRIVER IS A SMALL BUSINESS :p


“90. … general case and the written terms on which they rely do not correspond with the practical reality. The notion that Uber in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common ‘platform’ is to our minds faintly ridiculous. …”

UBER SAYING DRIVERS CAN GROW THEIR BUSINESS :rolleyes:

“… no driver is in a position to do anything of the kind, unless growing his business simply means spending more hours at the wheel. …”

“… That suggests that the driver is put into contact with a possible passenger with whom he has the opportunity to negotiate and strike a bargain. But drivers do not and cannot negotiate with passengers (except to agree a reduction of the fare set by Uber). They are offered and accept trips strictly on Uber’s terms.”

UBER SAYING THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE DRIVERS :frown:

“54. … No Uber manager instructs the driver to take any particular route … In practice, however, the App’s mapping software determines the route for most purposes. … [and] if an issue arises as to whether a passenger should receive a refund on the ground that the driver did not follow the most efficient route, ULL starts from the position … that it is for the driver to justify any departure from the route indicated on the App.

55. … Passengers are required to rate drivers at the end of every trip on a simple 0-5 scoring system. Ratings are monitored and [UberX] drivers with average scores below 4.4 become subject to a graduated series of “quality interventions” aimed at assisting them to improve. “Experienced” drivers [who have undertaken 200 trips or more] whose figures do not improve to 4.4 or better are “removed from the platform” and their accounts “deactivated”.

56. Uber seeks to tackle what is seen as more serious conduct on the part of drivers through the “Driver Offence Process”. Again, provision is made for a graduated series of measures. These begin with a “warning” sent by SMS message. The ultimate penalty is ‘deactivation’.

57. Finally, we have been shown numerous instances of ULL’s practice of directing messages at drivers (individually or collectively), presented as “recommendations”, “advice”, “tips” and/or “feedback”, seeking in one way or another to modify their behaviour in order to improve the “rider experience”.”

UBER SAYING DRIVERS HAVE A CONTRACT WITH PASSENGERS NOT THEM :eek:


“… That suggests that the driver is put into contact with a possible passenger with whom he has the opportunity to negotiate and strike a bargain. But drivers do not and cannot negotiate with passengers (except to agree a reduction of the fare set by Uber). They are offered and accept trips strictly on Uber’s terms.”

UBER SAYING ITS MARKETING CAMPAIGNS ARE IN THE INTEREST OF ITS DRIVERS :rolleyes:


“89. … they are a variety of driving services. Mr Aslam does not offer such a range. Nor does Mr Farrar, or any other solo driver. The marketing self-evidently is not done for the benefit of any individual driver. Equally self-evidently, it is done to promote Uber’s name and ‘sell’ its transportation services. …”

UBER SAYING ALL IT CONTRACTS ARE WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH :smiles:


“96. … an excellent illustration of the phenomenon of which Elias J warned in the Kalwak case of “armies of lawyers” contriving documents in their clients’ interests which simply misrepresent the true rights and obligations on both sides”

UBER SAYING WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING FACTS :mad:


(1) The contradiction in the Rider Terms between the fact that ULL purports to be the drivers’ agent and its assertion of “sole and absolute discretion” to accept or decline bookings.

(2) The fact that Uber interviews and recruits drivers.

(3) The fact that Uber controls the key information (in particular the passenger’s surname, contact details and intended destination) and excludes the driver from it.

(4) The fact that Uber requires drivers to accept trips and/or not to cancel trips, and enforces the requirement by logging off drivers who breach those requirements.

(5) The fact that Uber sets the (default) route and the driver departs from it at his peril.

(6) The fact that UBV fixes the fare and the driver cannot agree a higher sum with the passenger. (The supposed freedom to agree a lower fare is obviously nugatory.)

(7) The fact that Uber imposes numerous conditions on drivers (such as the limited choice of acceptable vehicles), instructs drivers as to how to do their work and, in numerous ways, controls them in the performance of their duties.

(8) The fact that Uber subjects drivers through the rating system to what amounts to a performance management/disciplinary procedure.

(9) The fact that Uber determines issues about rebates, sometimes without even involving the driver whose remuneration is liable to be affected.

(10) The guaranteed earnings scheme (albeit now discontinued).

(11) The fact that Uber accepts the risk of loss which, if the drivers were genuinely in business on their own account, would fall upon them.

(12) The fact that Uber handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about the driver.

(13) The fact that Uber reserves the power to amend the drivers’ terms unilaterally.”
Thanks
 

R.M.Ahmad

Well-Known Member
In particular, the ET had permissibly concluded there were obligations upon Uber drivers that they should accept trips offered by ULL and that they should not cancel trips once accepted.

This doesn't make sense because drivers are not under obligation to accept trips offered and can cancel trips accepted.
 

taxiapplover

Well-Known Member
This doesn't make sense because drivers are not under obligation to accept trips offered and can cancel trips accepted.

Really....? Then why does uber reduce our acceptance rate for not accepting the trips and subsequently deactivate us if our acceptance rates goes down to their required acceptance rate.
 

Sowf off da river

Well-Known Member
This doesn't make sense because drivers are not under obligation to accept trips offered and can cancel trips accepted.
till they get deactivated. Ty it.

Really....? Then why does uber reduce our acceptance rate for not accepting the trips and subsequently deactivate us if our acceptance rates goes down to their required acceptance rate.
That organic vinegar gone straight up his brain. This one doesn’t even know the rates charged.
 

BroomBroom

Well-Known Member
What a bunch of W**kers.

If we are self employed then why do we have to suffer from rating crap?
Why cant we set the destination in '' Busy periods '' . ?
Why dont we know before the trip where the Pax is going ?
Why do we have to do multiple stops with 15p per minutes? No other Ph will take that peanuts for waiting.
Self employed drivers can do the F*ck they want then how come Uber drivers have to keep their cancelation and acceptance rate higher?

you will never find a more selfish company than UBER in your entire life.
 

Uber Love

Active Member
Run that thing through me again.

Lets start at the beginning.

This is gonna take a long time.


Lets keep it simple.


Lets ask a new question.

WHY ARE UBER BEING TARGETTED?


Why are not mini cab firms being targetted?
 

R.M.Ahmad

Well-Known Member
Really....? Then why does uber reduce our acceptance rate for not accepting the trips and subsequently deactivate us if our acceptance rates goes down to their required acceptance rate.

The relationship between Uber and a driver is like the relationship of a contractor, in this case Uber, and a subcontractor, in this case the driver. A subcontractor is self-employed. If a subcontractor doesn't take contracts satisfactorily the contractor can refuse offer him/her any more contracts.

We have to remember the fact that if Uber loses next appeal Uber will not be able to operate profitably and has to give up UK market entirely. The decision of the appeal tribunal will apply on the rest of minicab companies. This means a large number of minicab companies also go out of business for the same reason Uber leaves UK market. This leaves only black cabs and minicab companies like Addison Lee in the market. This leaves a large number of minicab drivers like us without work. At the end we, the driver, lose the most. In addition to that the market will be left without competition and become monopolised by black cabs and few minicab companies like Addision Lee. This causes the fares to sky rocket and over stretch public transport. It is going to become a chaos. At the end the parliament has to legislate to nullify appeal tribunal decision to bring back order in passenger market. After that Uber comes back and makes a law suit for compensation. This is what will happen.
 

taxiapplover

Well-Known Member
The relationship between Uber and a driver is like the relationship of a contractor, in this case Uber, and a subcontractor, in this case the driver. A subcontractor is self-employed. If a subcontractor doesn't take contracts satisfactorily the contractor can refuse offer him/her any more contracts.

We have to remember the fact that if Uber loses next appeal Uber will not be able to operate profitably and has to give up UK market entirely. The decision of the appeal tribunal will apply on the rest of minicab companies. This means a large number of minicab companies also go out of business for the same reason Uber leaves UK market. This leaves only black cabs and minicab companies like Addison Lee in the market. This leaves a large number of minicab drivers like us without work. At the end we, the driver, lose the most. In addition to that the market will be left without competition and become monopolised by black cabs and few minicab companies like Addision Lee. This causes the fares to sky rocket and over stretch public transport. It is going to become a chaos. At the end the parliament has to legislate to nullify appeal tribunal decision to bring back order in passenger market. After that Uber comes back and makes a law suit for compensation. This is what will happen.

Uber will never leave London. Uber and other Minicab firms wouldn’t exploit their drivers. They will think millions times before take new drivers on board. In a long term, it will be great for us. I have no sympathy for greedy operators like uber, Addlee, GLH, green tomatoes cars etc etc
 

Sowf off da river

Well-Known Member
The relationship between Uber and a driver is like the relationship of a contractor, in this case Uber, and a subcontractor, in this case the driver. A subcontractor is self-employed. If a subcontractor doesn't take contracts satisfactorily the contractor can refuse offer him/her any more contracts.

We have to remember the fact that if Uber loses next appeal Uber will not be able to operate profitably and has to give up UK market entirely. The decision of the appeal tribunal will apply on the rest of minicab companies. This means a large number of minicab companies also go out of business for the same reason Uber leaves UK market. This leaves only black cabs and minicab companies like Addison Lee in the market. This leaves a large number of minicab drivers like us without work. At the end we, the driver, lose the most. In addition to that the market will be left without competition and become monopolised by black cabs and few minicab companies like Addision Lee. This causes the fares to sky rocket and over stretch public transport. It is going to become a chaos. At the end the parliament has to legislate to nullify appeal tribunal decision to bring back order in passenger market. After that Uber comes back and makes a law suit for compensation. This is what will happen.
Parliament has already set the law that uber is breaking. Stop talking nonsense.
No one is going to bend the law to suit anyone.
This is England.
Law is supreme.
 
Top