About: Uber BV v Aslam

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Uber BV v Aslam Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.org:8891 associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.org:8891/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FUber_BV_v_Aslam

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees (and entitled further to unfair dismissal, National Insurance contributions, and employer arrangement of income tax) but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers.

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Uber BV v Aslam (en)
rdfs:comment	Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees (and entitled further to unfair dismissal, National Insurance contributions, and employer arrangement of income tax) but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers. (en)
name	Uber BV v Aslam (en)
dcterms:subject	Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases Uber United Kingdom labour case law
Wikipage page ID	55099040 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1114308496 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	National Minimum Wage Act 1998 Brenda Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College Uber Industrial Law Journal James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd Unconscionability United Kingdom labour law Contract of employment McCormick v Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment contract in English law McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment Tony Clarke, Baron Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases Nicholas Hamblen, Lord Hamblen of Kersey Gig economy Uber Subsidiary United Kingdom labour case law Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher Independent contractor Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Working Time Directive Lord Kitchin Working Time Regulations 1998 Misrepresentation in English law UK company law UK labour law Bean LJ UK Supreme Court National living wage Lady Arden Sir Terence Etherton MR Lord Hodge Lord Leggatt Lord Reed Lord Sales Underhill LJ Unequal bargaining power dbr:Windle_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Justice dbr:Collector_of_Stamp_Revenue_v_Arrowtown_Assets_Ltd dbr:Cornwall_County_Council_v_Prater dbr:Fenoll_v_Centre_d’Aide_par_le_Travail dbr:Hashwani_v_Jivraj dbr:Mistake_(law) dbr:Secret_Hotels2 dbr:Syndicatul_Familia_Constanta_v_Directia_Generala_de_Asistenta_Sociala_si_Protectia_Copilului_Constanta dbr:UBS_AG_v_Revenue_and_Customs_Comrs dbr:Union_Syndicale_Solidaires_Isere_v_Premier_Ministre dbr:App_Drivers_&_Couriers_Union dbr:Byrne_Bros_(Formwork)_Ltd_v_Baird
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://bateswells.co.uk/2018/10/uber-coa-case-paul-jennings-and-rachel-mathieson-write-for-the-times/ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2748.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2016/B68.html http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2017/0056_17_1011.html https://www.politico.eu/list/tech-28-class-of-2021-the-ranking/yaseen-aslam-and-james-farrar/ https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/5.html http://www.adcu.org.uk
sameAs	Uber BV v Aslam Uber BV v Aslam
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:GMB_(trade_union) dbt:Blockquote dbt:Cite_journal dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Uber dbt:Infobox_Court_Case dbt:Clist_worker_scope
citations	[2021] UKSC 5 (en)
court	Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
imagealt	Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (en)
imagesize	150 (xsd:integer)
judges	Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen, and Lord Leggatt (en)
keywords	Worker status, Employment rights, Sham self-employment (en)
has abstract	Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees (and entitled further to unfair dismissal, National Insurance contributions, and employer arrangement of income tax) but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers. However, while the question of whether Uber drivers may also be employees may have been left open, the obstacle which must be overcome in any claim wishing to establish limb-a status is the employment tribunal's decision in Smith v Pimlico where the employment tribunal decided that Mr Smith was not an employee on the basis that it considered all the circumstances including the fact that the Claimant took advantage of his self employed status, that there was insufficient obligation to provide work or pay and undertook the financial risk of non payment by the client for this relationship to be one of employer and employee. This part of the decision was upheld by the EAT which dismissed the claimant’s cross appeal in this regard. This is only one of the most recent instances of a long history of cases where the courts fail to find an employer-employee relationship due to lack of mutuality of obligation. On 16 March 2021, Uber indicated that it intended to violate the Supreme Court ruling, by only paying drivers the minimum wage while driving, not when being available for work as the Supreme Court required. (en)
date decided	2021-02-19 (xsd:date)
imagelink	Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
prior actions	[2018] EWCA Civ 2748, [2017] UKEAT 0056_17_1011, [2016] EW Misc B68 (ET) (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Uber_BV_v_Aslam?oldid=1114308496&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	56178 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:Uber_BV_v_Aslam
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	List of United Kingdom Supreme Court cases Gig worker Nicholas Underhill International Alliance of App-based Transport Workers Dinah Rose Aslam v Uber BV Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3332 as of Dec 5 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (62 GB total memory, 41 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software