Taxi Driver Online

By the look of the clothes the photos must have been taken during the protest of early 2018 rather than more recently


Taxi driver denied again in legal battle against city firm 001 Taxis

https://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/1772 ... 001-taxis/


Image: Oxford Times

AN OXFORD taxi driver has lost a second employment tribunal into whether he was employed by a well-known city firm.

Mohammed Fadlalla, from Marston, had claimed he was employed by 001 Taxis but had been sacked after he joined a trade union.

In February 2018, Mr Fadlalla protested with about 100 GMB trade unionists, marching from one of 001’s offices in St Aldates, down Cornmarket Street and Botley Road to its other office in Osney Mead.

But in March 2018, at the first tribunal, he was told he had never been an employee of the firm.

A second tribunal – the findings of which were published this week – found he had not suffered any unlawful deduction of wages, had not been paid below the national minimum wage and had not been denied holiday pay.

Any claim that he suffered any ‘detriment’ for being a GMB member also failed in that hearing, which was held in late April and early May.

001 was described in court documents as a ‘family-owned company’, which has been operating for more than 50 years ‘under the leadership of the Green family’.

Mr Fadlalla had been found to ‘know and understand’ 001’s ‘arrangements and systems’ and was not ‘deceived or misled’.

An ‘important’ part of the case hinged on Mr Fadlalla being able to work outside 001’s control.

It was found that Mr Fadlalla had regularly operated ‘on his own initiative’. An example was him securing a special taxi driver permit for the Henley Royal Regatta in June 2017.

At the time, Mr Fadlalla told 001 that he had secured the permits and was ‘allowed into the VIP area to drop and pick up.’

He asked: “Please sort a good price for this service.”

This sort of work, employment judges agreed – in Reading last year and Watford earlier this year – showed that he was not necessarily bound to work for 001.

Mr Fadlalla had worked as a driver for 001 intermittently from 1997 until early last year. He then had ‘two long gaps’ in his service between 2007 and 2011 and then in late 2015. In the first gap, he took time out to study at Oxford Brookes University. In the second, he attended to family matters, spending several months in Sudan in 2015.

He said he was still unclear about what might happen in the future and whether there will be any further hearings.

Mr Fadlalla said his case is now being dealt with by the GMB and his lawyers. He had yet to hear from either since the publication of the second employment tribunal’s findings.

At the time of Mr Fadlalla’s march through Oxford, senior trade union leaders were extremely critical of 001.

Mick Rix, GMB national officer, said: “We’re stood outside a horrible company. Quite a number of taxi operators across the country employ the same tactics.

“There’s an old saying in the trade union movement: ‘an injury to one is an injury to all’, and we aren’t going anywhere.”

Mr Fadlalla is still working as a taxi driver but is not affiliated to any firm operating in Oxfordshire, he said.

001 was approached to comment.


Image: Oxford Times

The original protest match was posted on here early last year, but can't see any sign of the article about the first tribunal.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32408



The above (and the highlighted bits in particular) made me think that Mr Fadlalla was an HCD, and to that extent that it in the office's favour that he could do his own stuff as well as work out of the office.

Also, a brief report on the first tribunal said:



Which also might indicate that the reasoning was that he could do public hire work instead of relying on jobs from the office.

However, the impression given is that he couldn't work at all after he was sacked by the firm, which would point to him being a PHD. Of course, the stuff about relying on other drivers to feed his family might be a tad exaggerated, and he could have continued in work as an HCD working the ranks. Or he might have been driving someone else's HC, or whatever, and that was dependent on working for the office. But who knows?

Looking at the firm's site it looks as if they are predominately, if not solely, PH.


Surely if the first tribunal found he wasn't an employee, then I'm struggling to fathom out the need for the second tribunal.

Unless the second was an appeal and it found he was one of the lower levels of employee yet also found he had suffered no loss.

Bearing in mind the current view taken by the higher courts in respect of Uber, Addison Lee and that Plumbing firm, quite surprised the lower courts have ignore their judgments in this tribunal.

Unless we are missing something obvious.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, but this suggests they may take on HCDs:



So I wouldn't be surprised if they had saloon HCs from other areas working on their circuit. That would be consistent with him securing work from the Henley Regatta (which seems to be in the South Oxfordshire District Council area) and that bit about him still working as a driver but not affiliated to any firm in Oxfordshire.



Indeed, which is why I'm leaning towards him being an HCD, particularly the remark about the nature of his licence.

But ignoring all that, you're right about the inconsistency with Uber and Addy Lee, particularly as this firm offers rental cars and drivers are uniformed

Interesting though that they use the term 'driver partners' - wonder where they borrowed that from?