Taxi Driver Online

Putting a shiver up the spine of PH operators everywhere.

_________________
Former taxi driver

Bounds Taxis drivers are workers, tribunal finds

Drivers at a Northampton-based taxi firm who were required to wear uniforms, drive branded cars and log on to an app in order to accept jobs have won the right to be recognised as workers.

The employment tribunal’s ruling in the Bounds Taxis case is the latest to affect the gig economy. It follows the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Uber vs Aslam case, handed down in February, where the court ruled Uber drivers were workers entitled to rights including holiday pay and the national minimum wage whenever they had the Uber app switched on.

Two drivers, Mr Shah and Mr Adjei, brought a claim against United Travel Group, which traded as Bounds Taxis, arguing that they should be recognised as workers entitled to rest breaks and paid holiday.

The respondent argued that the drivers were self-employed as it merely provided an app called “iCabbie” for a fixed fee of £175 per week to enable them to receive jobs. The app rental fee is non-negotiable and applies regardless of the hours worked. If a driver fails to pay the fee they have to pay a £10 penalty for each day they fail to pay.

If they did not log in to the app, they could not receive jobs for Bounds Taxis. They were not allowed to accept jobs outside the app and if they missed a particular job or declined it, they would be logged off the app for a period of time.

The drivers were also required to attend an onboarding session at the Bounds office. If a driver failed to attend, they could not obtain work through the app until they had completed the induction.

There were penalties for not wearing a Bounds Taxis uniform or displaying Bounds branding on their cars. If they failed to do so, they would be logged off the app and therefore unable to work. This was policed via spot checks which also considered the cleanliness of their vehicles.

Bounds set the fares for jobs, and drivers had no control over these. Drivers had to accept discounts that were being marketed by Bounds, which took a percentage of all the fares.

The tribunal heard that drivers were expected to accept jobs once they had logged on to the app. If they did not, the driver would be penalised. Drivers were not able to provide a substitute if they could not complete a job.

At the tribunal hearing, Bounds argued that it provided a service – the app – for drivers under a contract, and that a separate contract between the driver and passenger arose when a driver accepted a job.

It said that drivers could work when they wished and were under no obligation to accept work, nor was the company under an obligation to offer any. However there was some element of control for “commercial reasons”.

Employment judge Robin Postle found that the respondent’s evidence was largely “unhelpful, disingenuous and evasive”.

The judge said: “The reality of the situation was that the respondents controlled the drivers to such a degree [that] there was clearly an overarching contract between the parties.

“The fact that the claimants may have represented themselves as self-employed is irrelevant. It is clear from the factual basis that each driver had no choice, that was imposed upon them by the respondents no doubt to avoid any potential employer-employee obligations.”

He said the fact that drivers needed to pay a £175 fee for the app meant they did not have substantial autonomy and independence, as they needed to log into the app in order to make the regular payment economically viable for them.

The tribunal ruled that the drivers were workers “without doubt”.

Claimant Shaqat Shah, who is also chair of App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU) Northampton branch, said:“I am so pleased and relieved that Bounds drivers are now finally recognised as the workers we always were. The era of brutal exploitation in the local minicab trade must come to an end but Northampton City Council, who both license Bounds and use its services, must no longer turn a blind eye to the abuse that has gone on for too long.”

Yaseen Aslam, president of ADCU, said: “This case once again proves that the problem of worker abuse in the private hire sector is widespread and deeply rooted in an industry that employs more than 250,000 people nationwide. The ADCU will not hesitate to protect our members wherever they may be and there will be plenty more similar cases to come. If the government will not enforce the law to protect the most vulnerable workers in this trade, then we will.”

Bounds Taxis has been contacted for comment.

_________________
IDFIMH

When you look at the rules those drivers were expected to adhere too, and compare them with the looser (IMO) rules that Uber's drivers had to follow, you have to wonder what the PH firm expected from this Tribunal.

The Supreme Court isn't called that for no reason, so expecting a lower court to go the other way is just madness.

I suspect that madness will continue and the PH firm will appeal.

_________________
IDFIMH

Not what one would expect from a 'fit and proper' operator.

But typical of the spiv like behaviour we see from far too many of them.

_________________
IDFIMH

Can't be bothered looking back now, but think that confirms what I said after the Supreme Court ruling and to those who say the judgement is irrelevant to HC circuits because the fares are regulated by the council, not the circuit.

But if the HC circuit is doing discounted runs, and setting the price for airport stuff and out-of-area jobs, then the circuit cracks the whip in that regard, thus just like a PH ciruit

Obviously a very interesting case, though, but Bounds drivers do look a bit more controlled and subordinated than Uber drivers, so to that extent difficult to see why the Supreme Court ruling wouldn't apply to Bounds. On the other hand, are the vast majority of PHD drivers any *less* controlled and subordinated than Uber drivers?

personally I think the inland revenue need to revisit the definitions of self employment to make it far more black and white this wishy washy middle status is in my opinion a nonsense

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Without a doubt Uber controls the drivers on their platform a lot less than most PH operators control the drivers on their circuits.

Not saying Uber are the good guys, but in respect of control most ops are far worse than them.

_________________
IDFIMH

Shock horror, Bounds are still sticking their heads in the sand.

Taxi drivers win legal battle against Northampton firm to ensure cabbies get workers' rights

Two taxi drivers have won a legal battle against their former Northampton employer to ensure cabbies receive the appropriate rights as workers.

An employment tribunal ruled Bounds Taxis' private hire drivers should be classed as 'workers' in a case brought by Shafqat Shah and Samuel Adjei and backed by the App Drivers and Couriers Union (ACDU).

In a ruling last month, Employment Judge Postle said the firm's drivers are ‘workers without doubt’ while criticising its practices and evidence during the four-day hearing in April.

United Travel Group, which owns Bounds, said the firm now 'affords all drivers absolute freedom to operate as a self-employed private hire driver'.

Mr Shah, who is also the ADCU Northampton chairman, said: “I am so pleased and relieved that Bounds drivers are now finally recognized as the workers we always were.

"The era of brutal exploitation in the local minicab trade must come to an end."

Bounds has for years operated a business model which insists that drivers are self-employed yet drivers were subject to intense micro management and a harsh disciplinary process, according to the ACDU.

The union added drivers were required to wear a Bounds uniform under threat of suspension if they did not do so while they were penalised if they missed or refused a job dispatched by app.

Mr Shah and Mr Adjei sued Bounds as they claimed they were entitled to a guaranteed minimum wage, holiday pay, pension contributions, and collective bargaining rights, among others as 'self-employed workers'.

The pair, who have not worked for Bounds since April, 2020, say cabbies worked, on-average, 12-hour days seven-days-a-week to earn a minimum wage, as well as having to pay £175-per-week 'radio rent' fees to even work for the firm, plus £30-a-day for fuel and insurance.

United Travel Group added the tribunal claim was first brought several years ago and has been delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic and legal arguments but Bounds now 'functions in a completely different manner'.

Huntingdon County Court in Cambridgeshire heard Mr Shah and Mr Adjei's case against Bounds on April 26-29 and sent its ruling to those involved on September 20.

The judge noted in his ruling, seen by the Chronicle & Echo: "It is clear from the factual basis that each driver had no choice, that was imposed upon them by the respondents no doubt to avoid any potential employer-employee obligations."

Bounds required their driver workforce to pay the company £9,000 in ‘rent’ with no guarantees about how much work, if any, they might receive.

The judge found that ‘rent’ was collected weekly and if drivers were late with payment they were ‘fined’ £10 per day by management.

In a withering assessment of the evidence presented by Bounds, the judge remarked: "Their evidence was largely unhelpful, disingenuous and evasive on occasions."

ADCU president Yaseen Aslam said: “This case once again proves that the problem of worker abuse in the private hire sector is widespread and deeply rooted in an industry that employs more than 250,000 people nation-wide.

"The ADCU will not hesitate to protect our members wherever they may be and there will be plenty more similar cases to come.

"If the government will not enforce the law to protect the most vulnerable workers in this trade, then we will.”

Around 40 drivers protested outside Bounds' office in Bradshaw Street in December, 2019, calling for a £5 minimum fare on jobs, a freeze on hiring more drivers and for the company to instead collect fees on a 15 per cent commission basis instead of a flat fee for drivers.

United Travel Group's statement said: "The tribunal claim was brought several years ago, but due to the pandemic and our legal representatives questioning the legitimacy of the claim, due to concerns about the claimants tax returns that we insisted were disclosed, the final hearing was delayed.

"The legal framework for determining if an individual is a worker is complex and by no means a simple binary response on any one fact.

"Consequently, United Travel Group now functions in a completely different manner, which affords all drivers absolute freedom to operate as a self-employed private hire driver.

"It should be noted that the claimants no longer have any connections with our business and have not done so since April 2020."

_________________
IDFIMH

"It should be noted that the claimants no longer have any connections with our business and have not done so since April 2020."

I'm not surprised. Who woud want to work for such a shower of $ hite?

But that doesn't stop you from behaving in a reasonable/lawful manner with those still working on your circuit.

_________________
IDFIMH