UK Tribunal Rules Bolt Drivers Are Workers, Entitled to Employment Rights. A detailed Guide.

What This Means for Taxi and Private Hire Drivers

A recent UK Employment Tribunal ruling on November 8, 2024, has significant implications for approximately 10,000 private hire drivers who operate through the Bolt app.

The Tribunal’s decision states that these drivers are classified as "workers" rather than independent contractors, meaning they are entitled to specific employment rights like minimum wage and paid leave.

This ruling impacts not only drivers working through Bolt but also raises questions across the entire private hire and taxi industry.

This article breaks down the ruling to help UK taxi and private hire drivers understand its implications.

Background of the Case

The legal case, Bandi & Others v Bolt Operations OÜ and Another, was brought by private hire drivers who provide services under the Bolt app. The drivers argued that they should be classified as "workers" with rights to minimum wage, holiday pay, and other employment benefits. Bolt, on the other hand, insisted that drivers are independent contractors, claiming the company only facilitates a platform for drivers to connect with passengers rather than employing them directly.

Key Issues Addressed by the Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal considered two main issues:

1. Whether Bolt drivers are legally "workers" under the National Minimum Wage Act (NMWA) and the Working Time Regulations (WTR).
2. If they are workers, during which periods should they be considered as "working" for the purpose of minimum wage and working time entitlements.

Different Models and Time Periods Assessed

The Tribunal assessed Bolt’s business model during two different periods:

• Agency Model (June 2019 - July 2022): Under this model, Bolt argued that it acted as an agent connecting drivers and passengers, claiming it didn’t operate a transportation service. Bolt suggested that drivers acted as independent contractors with passengers, not as workers for Bolt.
• Principal Model (August 2022 - Present): In this model, Bolt acknowledged operating as a transportation company but argued that drivers weren't employees because they could allow others to use their account under the "Bolt Link" scheme.

Each model had implications for whether the drivers could be classified as workers with entitlements to minimum wage, holiday pay, and protections under UK employment law.

Tribunal’s Findings on Worker Status

Bolt’s Agency Model

The Tribunal found Bolt’s arguments under the Agency Model were inconsistent with the true nature of the driver’s role. According to the Tribunal:

• The reality of the working relationship between Bolt and drivers indicated that Bolt did operate as a transportation service, with drivers acting as workers, not as independent contractors.
• The Tribunal cited previous rulings, such as Uber BV v Aslam, to support the conclusion that drivers were indeed workers employed by Bolt, entitling them to minimum wage and paid leave benefits.

Bolt’s Principal Model

In the Principal Model, Bolt claimed that drivers were not employees because the "Bolt Link" scheme allowed them to delegate tasks to others, removing the essential component of "personal service" that defines a worker. The Tribunal rejected this, stating:

• The Bolt Link scheme didn’t offer genuine substitution rights that would undermine a worker’s status. Therefore, drivers are still considered to be providing personal service.
• The Tribunal again concluded that drivers under this model were indeed workers, affirming their rights to fair wages and regulated working hours.

When Are Bolt Drivers Considered to be "Working"?

The Tribunal ruled that Bolt drivers should be classified as working during periods when they meet the following conditions:

1. The driver is within the territory in which they are licensed to operate.
2. The Bolt app is switched on.
3. The driver is available, ready, and able to accept trip assignments.

These three criteria are essential in determining when a driver is considered to be "on the job" and eligible for minimum wage and working time protections. This ruling particularly applies to drivers who are not "multi-apping" (i.e., using multiple private hire apps simultaneously).

The Tribunal referenced the Uber BV v Aslam case, where similar conditions were established to decide when app-based drivers are considered as actively "working."

Minimum Wage and Working Time Entitlements for Drivers

Working Time Regulations

According to the Working Time Regulations (WTR), periods when drivers are:

• Within their licensed territory,
• Logged into the Bolt app, and
• Ready to accept trips,

count as "working time." This means drivers can claim protections under WTR, such as maximum working hours and entitlements to rest breaks.

National Minimum Wage

Under the National Minimum Wage Act, the Tribunal ruled that Bolt drivers, while logged into the app and meeting the other criteria, are performing "Unmeasured Work." Unmeasured Work is a category where the time spent working isn’t based on a standard schedule but instead on availability to work, which still entitles drivers to minimum wage protections. Bolt must ensure drivers earn at least the national minimum wage for these periods, enhancing income security for private hire drivers.

Implications for Other Taxi and Private Hire Drivers

This ruling is a significant precedent for private hire and taxi drivers across the UK, especially those operating through similar apps like Uber, Ola, or others that operate on a contractor model. The Tribunal’s rejection of Bolt’s claim that its drivers are independent contractors suggests that other companies may face similar challenges regarding employment status.

The Tribunal’s decision also opens the door for drivers using other platforms to push for better employment protections. Taxi and private hire drivers are now positioned to seek clarifications on their employment status, potentially reshaping how licencing and working conditions are structured in the industry.