Taxi Driver Online

There were two threads on Bounds of Northampton last year.

First in July about the launch of the legal action:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34602

Second in December regarding a protest about a £5 minimum fare, percentage rather than fixed commission rates etc:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=35175

This new article kind of pulls the two threads together:


Court date set for union suing Northampton's Bounds Taxis for workers' rights

https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news ... ts-1889457

The firm representing them recently won a court case against Uber


Image: Northampton Chronicle

A Northampton taxi firm is being taken to court by two of its drivers arguing for cabbies to take home a minimum wage and holiday pay.

A court date has been set for Bounds Taxis to dispute whether its drivers should be paid a minimum wage and earn rights as self-employed workers.

The firm will appear for a three-day hearing at Huntingdon County Court, in Cambridgeshire, on April 22.


Image: Northampton Chronicle

The two drivers, Mr Shafqat Shah and Mr Samuel Adjei, are suing the company for worker's rights and say the firm's cabbies are working on-average 12 hour days seven-days-a-week to earn a minimum wage.

On average, drivers also have to pay £30-a-day for fuel and insurance while also paying £175-per-week "radio rent" fees to work for Bounds in the first place.

It comes after around 40 drivers protested outside the company's offices in Bradshaw Street in December, which called for a £5 minimum fare on jobs, a freeze on hiring more drivers and for Bounds to instead collect fees on a 15 per cent commission basis instead of a flat fee for drivers.

Now, Mr Shah and Mr Adjei are arguing they are entitled to a guaranteed minimum wage, holiday pay, pension contributions, and collective bargaining rights, among others.

When the Chronicle & Echo first reported on the legal action in July this year, a spokesperson for the company said there were systems in place to achieve a high level of service.

The men are being supported in their claim against taxi firm Bounds by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which has taken successful legal action against Uber and Addison Lee.

The Bounds spokesperson said: "We, like every firm in the country, charge a fixed fee and supply the driver bookings. We do not stipulate what time they start or finish, the agreement allows them to come and go as they wish and there are no restrictions on the number of hours they can work or the number of bookings they can receive.

"We must stress that each and every driver is self-employed and has the choice to move to another company any time they wish.

"The majority stay with us as we have, being the largest fleet, the ability to provide a far quicker service than most and consequently have secured a much larger percentage of the work within the town.

"It, therefore, follows that they have the potential to increase their earnings."

Yes, we'd noticed they're currently self-employed - that's what the case is all about


Several questionable things in there, but can't see that any of it has much bearing on whether drivers self-employed or not.

Anyway, should be an interesting case in view of the fact that it's a more conventional firm rather than Uber, or even Addison Lee.

the trouble with all of this that it is a load of court cases challenging particular business set ups and proper consensus will never be reached this way what is needed is an up to date legal definition of what is and isn't self employment produced by the government

when i started out in this trade there were about 1 million self employed now there are over 6 million and a lot of it is very dubious workarounds to avoid tax and national insurance

This whole idea of the "gig" economy needs a radical shakeup but of course that might upset a few party donors

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

I get the self-employment issue, but can't work out why there was placards about discrimination.

Not sure that makes sense.

_________________
IDFIMH

Judgement pending for union suing Northampton's Bound Taxis for workers' rights

The outcome of a court case against a Northampton taxi firm being sued for workers' right could be a 'landmark' hearing for the UK's private taxi industry.

Bounds Taxi is being taken to court by two of its cabbies to argue that drivers should be paid a minimum wage and holiday pay.

Now, following a four day court hearing in Watford last week (April 26), the countdown has begun before a decision is handed down.

The ruling could set a precedent for how private taxi firms across the country pay their drivers.

It comes after the firm fighting the case, the App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU), won a supreme court battle against Uber in February that entitled drivers to national minimum wage and holiday pay.

ADCU president Yaseen Aslam said: "Throughout the UK we see that almost the entire private hire industry has copied Uber’s model of worker exploitation by misclassifying workers so to deny them their statutory rights.

"It is unfortunate that Bounds Taxis has not been willing to meet its legal obligations as an employer and that neither the government nor Northampton City Council [sic.] have stepped in to insist they do so. The ADCU will not hesitate to take what ever action is necessary to clean up the trade."

The two Northampton drivers, Mr Shafqat Shah and Mr Samuel Adjei, are suing Bounds for worker's rights and say the firm's cabbies are working 12 hour days seven-days-a-week to earn a minimum wage.

On average, drivers also have to pay £30-a-day for fuel and insurance while also paying £175-per-week "radio rent" fees to work for Bounds in the first place.

It comes after around 40 drivers protested outside the company's offices in Bradshaw Street in December 2019, which called for a £5 minimum fare on jobs, a freeze on hiring more drivers and for Bounds to instead collect fees on a 15 per cent commission basis instead of a flat fee for drivers.

When the Chronicle & Echo first reported on the legal action in July 2020, a spokesperson for the company said there were systems in place to achieve a high level of service.

The Bounds spokesperson said: "We, like every firm in the country, charge a fixed fee and supply the driver bookings. We do not stipulate what time they start or finish, the agreement allows them to come and go as they wish and there are no restrictions on the number of hours they can work or the number of bookings they can receive.

"We must stress that each and every driver is self-employed and has the choice to move to another company any time they wish.

"The majority stay with us as we have, being the largest fleet, the ability to provide a far quicker service than most and consequently have secured a much larger percentage of the work within the town.

"It, therefore, follows that they have the potential to increase their earnings."

_________________
IDFIMH

Think it's the other way around, Uber copied the status quo, they didn't invent it.

_________________
IDFIMH

ACDU president Yaseen Aslam is mistaken if he thinks most of the private hire operators have copied Ubers model, they have been operating that model from when the private hire trade was legalised in 1976.
They have been allowed to get away with this but the writing could be on the wall now.

Mr President is either clueless about the trade, or is bull$hitting

I am glad all our drivers are employees. I don't have to worry about all this.

_________________
Grandad,
To support my charity text MAYORWALK to 70085 to donate £5

Jimbo started a new thread for the Tribunal's Decision.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37405

_________________
IDFIMH