Taxi Driver Online

This is an appeal dealing with the employment/self-employment/worker's status of a taxi journeyman. It deals with the relationship with the taxi firm as well as the taxi owner.

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2023/93.html

The judge very helpfully starts his judgement with a few paragraphs basically summing up his judgement, a kind of judicial soundbite.

SUMMARY

EMPLOYEE, WORKER OR SELF-EMPLOYED

Mr Comolly is a taxi driver. He registered with United Taxis and then did work driving United Taxis’ passengers, through one of its shareholders, Mr Parkinson, using his taxi. After that relationship came to an end he did work driving United Taxis’ passengers, through another shareholder, Mr Tidman, using his taxi. After that relationship ended he brought various complaints to the employment tribunal asserting that he was either an employee or a worker of United Taxis or Mr Tidman.

The tribunal determined as preliminary issues that Mr Comolly was a worker of United Taxis and an employee of Mr Tidman.

On the facts found the tribunal properly concluded that United Taxis’ passengers’ contracts were, and were solely, with United Taxis. It also properly concluded that, under Mr Comolly’s contract with Mr Tidman, Mr Comolly provided services to him in exchange for payment. United Taxis contracted out the task of conveying its passengers to Mr Tidman, who in turn sub-contracted it to Mr Comolly.

However, the tribunal erred in finding that Mr Tidman had a contract with United Taxis under which he also did work for it. There was no necessity to imply such a contract, whether from the fact that he registered with United Taxis, and was required to comply with its rules and byelaws as a condition of being permitted to convey its passengers, or otherwise. The tribunal could also not properly find that he was simultaneously an employee or worker of two employers in respect of the same work.

The tribunal also erred in finding that Mr Comolly’s contract with Mr Tidman was a contract of employment, in particular in its approach to the question of control. Drawing on its findings of fact, a finding was substituted that Mr Comolly was a worker of Mr Tidman.

This judgement very much relies on the facts outlined in the employment tribunal, so the outcome might not apply to everyone in a similar position to Mr Comolly. However, those facts are quite wide spread amongst journeymen, so this judgement will apply to a significant number of them.

In my opinion.

_________________
IDFIMH

Haven't read the whole case, but from what I can see the kind of stuff examined means that the judgment should be as significant to the trades as the Uber case, although as an Employment Appeal Tribunal it's a bit further down the judicial pecking order than the Supreme Court.

As significant, of course, if it was more widely applied, but like the Uber judgment, its wider application depends on local individuals and groups taking action, and that's more likely to be piecemeal rather than widespread.

But it all confirms what a small number of us on here have been banging on about for years - where in the trade press or the traditional representative organisations like Unite have similar arguments been made? Rough answer - nowhere

When you read the requirements that the driver had to adhere to, from both the taxi firm and the taxi owner, you have to wonder what century we are in.

You also have a crystal clear answer to those that wonder why drivers are leaving the trade.

_________________
IDFIMH