The Impact of Legal Decisions on the Gig Economy

The legal landscape of the gig economy has been evolving rapidly, particularly in the private hire and taxi industry. The 2021 Supreme Court decision on Uber drivers set a significant precedent, and two key cases in November 2024—Johnson v GT Gettaxi and Bandi & Others v Bolt—have further clarified the complexities of employment status. These cases demonstrate the highly fact-specific nature of such claims, with contrasting outcomes based on nuanced differences in the working relationships.

Case Overview: Johnson v GT Gettaxi

In Johnson v GT Gettaxi, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the claimant, a black cab driver using GT Gettaxi’s app, was correctly classified as self-employed. This classification barred him from pursuing a claim related to an alleged protected disclosure. The tribunal's reasoning rested on the limited control GT Gettaxi exercised over the claimant.

Key details include:

• The app served as a supplementary income stream for the claimant, accounting for only 5% of his earnings from 2015 to 2017.
• GT Gettaxi imposed minimal controls on drivers beyond regulatory requirements set by Transport for London (TfL). For example, while TfL mandates drivers to accept journeys within 12 miles or one hour, the app itself did not penalize drivers for rejecting or canceling bookings.
• Drivers retained autonomy over routes taken to destinations.

The tribunal concluded that the absence of direct control over work practices affirmed the claimant’s self-employed status.

Case Overview: Bandi & Others v Bolt

In stark contrast, the Employment Tribunal in Bandi & Others v Bolt classified approximately 10,000 Bolt drivers as workers, entitling them to national minimum wage, paid holidays, and other protections. This decision hinged on Bolt’s level of control over drivers and the monitoring of their activities.

Notable factors included:

• Drivers were required to meet minimum service standards and adhere to the most direct and efficient routes.
• Bolt implemented penalties, such as docking pay or temporarily blocking drivers, for failing to meet service expectations.
• Bolt actively monitored passenger journeys, creating a dynamic where drivers had less autonomy.

The tribunal’s decision is estimated to cost Bolt £200 million in compensation, signaling the significant financial implications of worker misclassification.

Why the Outcomes Differed

Employment status claims are inherently fact-sensitive, with outcomes varying even among individuals engaged on similar terms. A critical factor in both cases was control —the degree to which the platform dictated how drivers performed their work.

• GT Gettaxi: The app functioned as a supplementary tool, and drivers had significant flexibility, leading to a self-employed classification.
• Bolt: The platform’s service standards, penalties, and journey monitoring created a level of dependency and control consistent with worker status.

This divergence underscores the importance of examining the practical realities of working relationships rather than relying solely on contractual terms.

The Debate on "Working Time"

The Bolt case also raised the question of what constitutes "working time." Should drivers be compensated only for active journeys, or does waiting for bookings also count? The tribunal provided a nuanced answer:

• Drivers explicitly informed that they could reject bookings without penalties were deemed to be working only during accepted journeys.
• Drivers who were not given clear communication were considered to be working while logged into the Bolt app and waiting for bookings in their licensed area.

This ruling suggests that platforms must provide transparent policies to avoid liability for compensating waiting time.

The Complexity of Ride-Sharing Multi-Apping

A growing trend in the private hire industry is multi-apping, where drivers simultaneously operate across multiple platforms, accepting bookings from various apps. This raises an unresolved question: Are drivers “working” when scrolling through apps waiting for bookings?

The Bolt case did not address this issue, leaving a significant gap in the legal framework. As multi-apping becomes increasingly prevalent, future litigation may need to address whether platforms share responsibility for drivers’ idle time across multiple apps.

What Are The Implications for the Gig Economy

These cases highlight the evolving and fragmented nature of employment law in the gig economy. Businesses must carefully assess their operational models to align with legal standards, balancing the need for flexibility with fair treatment of workers. For drivers, these decisions underscore the importance of understanding their rights and the terms under which they operate.

The Future?

As the gig economy continues to grow, legal challenges are likely to increase. Questions surrounding control, working time, and multi-apping will remain at the forefront, shaping the relationship between platforms and workers. These issues are not merely legal formalities; they strike at the heart of how the gig economy functions and its impact on millions of workers.