Taxi Driver Online

Interesting - this is mainly about the dress code thing, but obviously the more important point is regarding the judge's remarks about the driver's employment status


Muslim cab driver loses legal case against taxi firm that banned him from wearing traditional dress because customers 'prefer western dress'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... dress.html

• Zulquarnain Ali alleged he was discriminated on the grounds of his religion
• Said he was not allowed to wear his shalwar kameez under company dress code
• His case was thrown out as a judge ruled he was technically self-employed

A Muslim cab driver tried to sue a taxi company after he was banned from wearing traditional garments and had to wear 'smart western' clothing under its dress code.

Zulquarnain Ali alleged he was discriminated on the grounds of his religion because he was not allowed to wear his shalwar kameez - a traditional dress worn in South Asian countries - which would allow him to conveniently visit a mosque and pray.

Leeds Taxi Owners Ltd temporarily suspended the veteran hackney carriage driver from its customer booking system when it emerged he was breaching the dress policy by wearing the traditional garments while working.

The taxi firm's customers 'object to drivers in shalwar kameez and want them to be in smart western dress', a tribunal heard.

The shalwar kameez - which is the national dress of Pakistan - consists of loose-fitting trousers and a tunic.

At an employment tribunal in Leeds, West Yorkshire, Mr Ali tried to sue Leeds Taxi Owners Ltd for religion or belief discrimination.

However, his case was thrown out as a judge ruled he was technically self-employed despite being a driver for the member-owned company.

Mr Ali, an experienced taxi driver who is licenced by Leeds City Council, was able to pick up customers from the street but could also access Leeds Taxi Owners booking system to get customers.

The tribunal heard he was involved in the dress code dispute in 2019.

A tribunal report said: 'Leeds Taxi Owners had a dress code and it is that in part that gives rise to these proceedings, because Mr Ali wanted to wear his shalwar kameez so that he could conveniently go to the mosque and pray.

'There is no dispute that Leeds Taxi Ownert had a written policy that its drivers should wear smart western dress and not shalwar kameez.

'An issue arose in 2019 when it was obviously brought to somebody's attention that Mr Ali was wearing shalwar kameez and he was removed from the system for a period.

'He was reinstated after a couple of weeks. There were various discussions and he ended up having a meeting with the directors.'

The report added 'some of Leeds Taxi Owners' clients object to drivers in shalwar kameez and want them to be in smart western dress'.

Arguing that he was an employee of the company, Mr Ali told the tribunal he worked up to 83 hours a week.

But, it was heard just a third of Mr Ali's fares came from Leeds Taxi Owners and 'fundamentally' he was a self-employed driver who signed up to Leeds Taxi Owners.

As a result, Judge Davies ruled Mr Ali cannot proceed with his claim as he was not an employee.

Judge Davies said: 'I find that Mr Ali falls on the side of the line of being in business on his own account.

'He is a hackney carriage driver plying his trade.

'He can choose at any time simply to pick up street fares. He can go down to the station and pick up passengers there, join a taxi rank or stop if somebody flags him down.

'He chose to sign up with Leeds Taxi Owners... Having regard to the context of the way he works, I find that was in the nature of a business decision taken by him.

'He thought it was in his benefit to pay £60 a month so as to have access to a whole different source of work, namely Leeds Taxi Owners' system work.

'He does not have any obligation to log on and do that work at any time... He is essentially choosing between different available sources of work throughout his working time.'

Judge Davies added: 'Mr Ali is also bound by the rule about dress code.

'That is one factor pointing towards a degree of subordination and integration into a business... but I find that it is outweighed by the other factors that point more towards true self-employment.'

NOT Pirate Hire therefore has more than one source of work

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

This must have cost the driver and the firm thousands and thousands for something that has been decided that way time and time again.

But what we mustn't confuse this with is the 'worker's rights' issue.

Even self employed folks are entitled to 'worker's rights'.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, but the Uber case certainly brings all this kind of stuff into focus, and of course there are many different hackney carriage circuit scenarios.

And even given the facts of the Leeds circuit here, to a degree the judge's remarks are interesting to compare with the Uber scenario.

I mean, he says the driver can log on and off when he wants, but of course that's the same with Uber.

And as regards the different sources of work, is there much difference between an Uber driver also working with Bolt or Ola, or an HC on a circuit also working the ranks?

I think the main difference is that a private hire driver must always be working through an operator but a hackney can chose to work on their own account.

_________________
Grandad,

Fair point, but take that kind of argument to its logical confusion and you could say that an Uber driver could choose to do another job entirely

But it's certainly one factor that's relevant, although not a deciding factor, in my opinion at least

For example, as portrayed in the case the Leeds driver sounds like the TOA work was just topping up his rank jobs.

Here in NE Fife, the HCDs who work for the bigger circuits use the rank work to top up their pre-booked work. So in terms of 'dependency' or whatever test the courts use, I don't think the two scenarios are comparable.

Then there's the drivers who don't own a car, and some of the cars are owned by the circuit, blah, blah.

Could waffle on for hours about this kind of stuff, but, you know...

A PH driver can indeed work for himself if he has his own operators licence. But of course all work has to be booked by phone or other means. I did for about 10 years.

When it comes down to issues like a dress code/self employment, I'm not sure it matters if your are PH or hackney carriage.

You can be self employed as PH and hackney, and can be employed as PH and hackney.

_________________
IDFIMH

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the EAT case posted by Sussex effectively confirms what I said above

Can't believe I wrote that - 'logical confusion'

I was certainly logically confused, but will put the blame on autocorrect

Should, of course, have read 'logical conclusion'