Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri May 01, 2026 2:31 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2024 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57350
Location: 1066 Country
Bolt drivers to get £15,000 each in legal win that ‘goes further’ than Uber case

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article ... -uber-case

BOLT drivers will get an estimated more than £15,000 each after winning a landmark workers’ rights case today believed to go further than the Supreme Court’s Uber ruling.

Leigh Day launched the case after the Supreme Court in 2021 ruled that Uber drivers are workers rather than self-employed contractors.

It said that the roughly 15,000 clients it represented will get an expected £200 million backdated compensation for underpayment of the minimum wage and unpaid holiday pay after an employment tribunal ruled they were workers as well.

The firm explained that Bolt currently only pays its drivers for time spent on trips but following the ruling should also pay for time spent logged into the app, providing they are not also logged into apps for other private hire operators.

Leigh Day solicitor Charlotte Pettman said: “This judgment confirms that gig economy operators cannot continue to falsely classify their workers as independent contractors running their own business to avoid providing the rights those workers are properly entitled to.”

Married father-of-three south London Bolt driver Shuhel Ahmed said: “This is brilliant news and such a relief.

“It’s satisfying to know that our hard work and long hours have been recognised, and that we can fight on for better pay and conditions, and for compensation that will make a huge difference to my family’s life.”

Private hire driver union GMB’s national officer Eamon O’Hearn said: “This ruling goes further than the landmark case against Uber, in which GMB was instrumental.

“It raises questions for the industry around waiting time and multi-apping.

“We believe workers’ rights around holidays should be universal and this ruling confirms that fact.

“GMB will be review the decision closely and engage with the industry to understand the implications for our members.”

App Drivers & Couriers Union General Secretary Zamir Dreni said: “This ruling against Bolt is long overdue but, once again, the poorest paid workers must spend years in litigation while successive governments stand by idly.

"The ruling vindicates our position on working time and demonstrates that neither Bolt nor Uber have never fully complied with the Supreme Court ruling which means that between 40 and 60 per cent of true working time remains unpaid.

"Rather than force workers back into courts for another decade of litigation, the government needs to step in now and fix the current employment bill, which omitted protections for gig workers, so that Britain’s hard working minicab drivers and delivery couriers get the protections they deserve”.

A Bolt spokesperson said: “Drivers are at the heart of what we do, and we have always supported the overwhelming majority’s choice to remain self-employed independent contractors, protecting their flexibility, personal control, and earning potential.

"We will continue to engage with drivers as we carefully review our options, including grounds for appeal, ensuring that we are helping drivers to succeed as entrepreneurs and grow on their own terms.”

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57350
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
The firm explained that Bolt currently only pays its drivers for time spent on trips but following the ruling should also pay for time spent logged into the app, providing they are not also logged into apps for other private hire operators.

I saw this case on some legal site but it carried a response from Bolt saying it would only apply to one in ten of the drivers on the app, which at the time didn't seem much of a win.

However, when Bolt said one in ten it clearly applied to the new 'working when waiting' decision from the tribunal, so that is a move forward.

Many drivers on Uber, only work for Uber, so this decision could cost them an absolute fortune. :D

Well done to the unions, the drivers, and their legal teams. =D>

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18531
Didn't the Supreme Court decision decide the same regarding logged-on idle time, but Uber just ignored that when 'complying' with the ruling?

And which couldn't really be enforced without going through the whole court rigmarole again?

To that extent the case hasn't decided anything substantively new, while in terms of enforcing the whole thing it's certainly a step forward.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18531
Quote:
The firm explained that Bolt currently only pays its drivers for time spent on trips but following the ruling should also pay for time spent logged into the app, providing they are not also logged into apps for other private hire operators.

Does that mean that if drivers are working for two or more apps then they can't be classed as a 'worker' (I'd always assumed working for more than one app would undermine any claim that they're not self-employed, if not automatically destroying any case)?

Or does it just mean that a worker can't claim idle time while logged on to more than one app, and isn't really relevant to whether they're classed as self-employed or a worker?

Anyway, good luck to anyone who has to entangle all that it terms of measuring when drivers are logged on to what apps. Or not, as the case may be :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18531
Quote:
The firm explained that Bolt currently only pays its drivers for time spent on trips but following the ruling should also pay for time spent logged into the app, providing they are not also logged into apps for other private hire operators.

Gotcha - if they're waiting on work over a two-way radio then that doesn't count :-s :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57350
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Does that mean that if drivers are working for two or more apps then they can't be classed as a 'worker'

That's what I first thought, but it seems that's not the case.

The Supreme Court has said drivers working for Uber are 'workers', they didn't say that if they multi apped that didn't apply.

In fact I'm not sure it was ever argued at the Supreme Court despite being a point of issue at the lower court.

What the Bolt decision has confirmed is that if you work (offer your services) to only one operator then your worker's rights apply all the time you are logged on the app, not just when you are engaged on a job issued from that app.

But you are right, the likes of Uber have decided to run with the 'only when on a job' rule following the Supreme Court decision. I would be very surprised if the legal team involved in the Bolt decision do not go back to court against Uber.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18531
Some interesting insights in this TaxiPoint piece a couple of days ago, mainly featuring stuff from James Farrar.

But it's the usual stuff simply about 'apps' or whatever terminology is used.

But many of the arguments are basically the same as some of us have been making for the thick end of 30 years now, whether regarding apps, or traditional HC and PH circuits :-o

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/calls ... nal-ruling


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2024 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57350
Location: 1066 Country
This is an interesting piece from the Taxi-Point website, which breaks some of the stuff down a bit further, and confirms that claims against AL and Ola have been heard recently. No doubt we all await the outcome.

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/bolt- ... d-multi-ap

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 632 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group