Taxi for Worker Status!

In this article we explore two gig economy status cases- one that went the way of the putative employer and another that went the way of the putative worker.  

The first case is the matter of Mr Z Bandi & Others v (1) Bolt Operations OU & (2) Bolt Services UK Ltd. Bolt Operations which was a first instance judgment, handed down recently at the London Central Employment Tribunal. The presiding judge is a very long-standing and experienced employment judge, and the judgment (running to some 52 pages and 188 paragraphs!) was extensive. Readers may well be familiar with Bolt as a company- in simple terms, it is a competitor of Uber, in that it is a mobility platform that allows passengers to connect with a taxi (or to be more accurate a private hire vehicle).

The second case is the matter of Mr C Johnson v GT Gettaxi (UK) Ltd [2024] which was a higher court judgment, also handed down around a week ago, at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). Similar to our first case, Gettaxi also operates a mobile app platform through which passengers can connect with a taxi.

Given the nature of both businesses involved in these cases it will not surprise you that the seminal case of Uber v Aslam featured heavily in legal arguments on all respective sides of both cases.

In short, while both cases were heard at different levels of the employment tribunal system, Bolt at the first instance tribunal and Gettaxi at the EAT, it is not often that two judgments are delivered on the same issue, in the same industry, at the same time. 

As such, the judgments are ripe for comparison, so that our readers can easily see what factors differed in each and contributed to different findings. As such, below is a comparison table which separates out the main status issues, sets out the facts on each, found by the respective tribunals and finally sets out the result, providing for an interesting compare and contrast exercise.

If you have any questions or queries regarding these judgments, please contact kaushikchaudhuri@chartergates.com or marktaylor@chartergates.com.

BOLT & Gettaxi Judgments – Comparison Table

Personal Service:

Factual Issue	BOLT	GETTAXI
The ability of a driver to substitute themselves or send another driver.	Yes, BUT the right to substitute was: (1) restricted to substitutes who were: ‘associated’ with the main driver’s account; (2) substitution undertaken by BOLT (not the driver); and (3) only if the substitute was the closest to pick-up.	No.

Mutuality of Obligations (MOO) & Control:

Factual Issue	BOLT	GETTAXI
Penalties for rejection of rides (i.e. work) offered	Yes. Penalties were imposed if a driver’s rate of rejection exceeded a certain percentage.   BOLT could reject a request from the passenger for a ride without reference to the driver.   Pay would be docked if a passenger complained about the route taken and BOLT determined it was not a reasonable route.	No. Penalties were not imposed by Gettaxi for rejecting rides, although repeated cancellations of accepted rides were discouraged.   Transport for London (TfL) Regulations require the driver to accept rides in accordance with regulatory obligations.   No penalty for not following the GPS route. The driver was free to follow the route he considered best.
Exclusivity	Drivers not excluded from using other apps, but this was not sufficient to remove the driver’s dependency on BOLT when on the BOLT app.	Drivers not excluded from using other apps or taking other fares.
Disciplinary action/sanctions	Graduated system of enforcement – education, warning, block (suspension).   The expectation of adherence to minimum service standards, set by BOLT, with regular updates to drivers on service standard expectations.    Drivers could be sanctioned or blocked including on the grounds of conduct and performance.	None.

Business/profession providing services to client/customer:

Factual Issue	BOLT	GETTAXI
Pricing for service (also relevant to control)	BOLT determined the fare and took payment from the passenger and then generated an invoice from the driver to the passenger. The passenger did not see the invoice and the driver did not see the passenger receipt.   The default was that BOLT set the pricing of the fare. There was a restrictive custom pricing option for drivers to stipulate a minimum price per mile. A median rate was calculated and drivers above that median rate were removed from the option.	The driver’s fares were governed by TfL Transport for London Regulations and must charge the customer according to the metered fare.
Communication between passenger & driver (also relevant to control)	BOLT controlled the communication between the parties. There was no communication between the passenger and the driver until after the driver accepted the trip.   The communication was through the App and in such a way as to preclude either from learning the other’s telephone number.	The driver was given limited details about passengers on accepting fares. The driver and passenger could communicate directly with each other, and they were not prevented from having a conversation.   The driver was not prevented or discouraged from making arrangements directly with passengers for other trips.
Vehicle standards/checks	Drivers provided their vehicles which were required to comply with Bolt standards.	Drivers used their black cabs but were not required to comply with Gettaxi’s standards.
Recruitment (also relevant to control and MOO)	BOLT advertised to attract new drivers, completed application forms and required attendance at interviews (activation sessions). Personal documentation was checked, and some training was provided.	Drivers signed up and registered for the app. There were no interviews with drivers. There were some instructions on setting up an account and optional training via video link.
Contact with passengers (also relevant to control)	Drivers were explicitly prohibited from contacting passengers after trips unless to return lost property, and even then, only within 24 hours.	Drivers were not prohibited or discouraged from arranging trips with passengers, without involving the Gettaxi and the driver could ply their trade outside of the app.

OUTCOME:	BOLT	GETTAXI
	Drivers qualified as workers	Drivers not workers – self-employed

Disclaimer:  Chartergate Legal Services Ltd has drafted this article to provide you with a general overview of the relevant law and developments at the date of sending only.  This article is provided as a general overview and should be taken as such.  It is not a substitute for professional advice that is specific to your circumstances and should not be relied upon as such.