News Story: Employment Tribunal Rules Bolt Drivers Are 'Workers'

Employment status/Workers

• Bandi v Bolt Operations OÜ (2024) UKET/2206953/21

The employment tribunal considered the employment status of private hire vehicle drivers who provided their services through the Bolt app.

The claimants were approximately 10,000 private hire drivers who provided transportation services to passengers in various locations around the UK in the name of Bolt and through the Bolt app. The first respondent, Bolt Operations OÜ (BOO), provided payment processing and collection services from June 2019 to July 2022. The second respondent, Bolt Services UK Ltd (BSUL), held licences to operate private hire businesses across the UK and was the entity through which those businesses were run. Between June 2019 and July 2022, Bolt operated under what it termed an agency arrangement, whereby, on its case, BSUL was an intermediary between the drivers and passengers, providing booking and payment processing services through the app and taking a commission in return (Agency Model). From August 2022, Bolt's trading arrangements changed significantly as BOO was excluded entirely and BSUL became the only relevant Bolt entity (Principal Model). Under the Principal Model standard driver terms, Bolt acknowledged a contract between it and the driver for the provision of driving services but sought to exclude any notion of employment. The claimants brought claims in the employment tribunal asserting that they were 'workers' under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) and therefore entitled to the National Minimum Wage and paid annual leave (see Employment status, Q&A here and Q&A here).

At a preliminary hearing, the employment status of eight sample claimants was determined. The tribunal found that the drivers were employed by Bolt as workers under 'limb (b)' contracts pursuant to s 230(3)(b) ERA 1996. Applying the leading cases of Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 and Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, the tribunal dismissed Bolt's argument that under the Agency Model it did not run a transportation business but acted as an agent for the drivers who entered into individual contracts with passengers. This did not correspond with the reality of the relationship between the parties: the drivers did work 'for' Bolt and were the skilled labour it required to further its transportation business. It was also stated that under both the Agency Model and Principal Model, Bolt could not be regarded as a client or customer of the drivers. Further, the tribunal held that where and for so long as a limb (b) contract existed, which required establishing mutuality of obligation, the drivers were working under such contracts where they: (i) were in the territory for which they had a licence to operate; (ii) had the app open; and (iii) were ready and able to accept trips. This followed the general analysis in Uber and was referred to as 'availability time'. The drivers' availability time was held to constitute 'working time' under regulation 2(1) Working Time Regulations 1998 and time engaged in 'unmeasured work' for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage legislation. The findings in relation to time spent working were confined to drivers who did not engage in the practice of 'multi-apping', which involves keeping open or switching between private hire operator apps when looking for work.