Ar trebui șoferii Uber și celelalte persoane fizice ce lucrează în economia colaborativă să beneficieze de drepturile lucrătorilor, inclusiv dreptul la un salariu minim și dreptul la concediul de odihnă?
Într-un context în care Uniunea Europeană și-a propus să îmbunătățească situația lucrătorilor prin intermediul platformelor digitale, un caz ce îl privea a fost soluționat definitiv de Curtea Supremă din UK. Procesul colectiv împotriva Uber a fost inițiat de 12.000 de șoferi Uber, reprezentanți de o casă de avocatură.
Potrivit Curții Supreme din UK, șoferii Uber ar trebui considerați ca lucrători de la momentul la care se înregistrează în aplicație până în momentul în care renunță la activitate.
Redăm, în cele ce urmează, un extras comunicatul de presă al Curții:
„ […] Uber argued that Uber BV acted solely as a technology provider with its subsidiary (Uber London in this case) acting as a booking agent for drivers who are approved by Uber London to use the Uber app. Uber argued that, when a ride is booked through the Uber app, a contract is thereby made directly between the driver and the passenger whereby the driver agrees to provide transportation services to the passenger [1, 43]. The fare is calculated by the Uber app and paid by the passenger to Uber BV, which deducts part (20% in these cases) and pays the balance to the driver. Uber characterises this process as collecting payment on behalf of the driver and charging a “service fee” to the driver for the use of its technology and other services. To support its case, Uber relied on the wording of its standard written contracts between Uber BV and drivers and between the Uber companies and passengers (summarised at [22 – 29]). Uber also emphasised that drivers are free to work when they want and as much or as little as they want. In summary, Uber argued that drivers are independent contractors who work under contracts made with customers and do not work for Uber.
The Supreme Court disagrees. As on the facts there was no written contract between the drivers and Uber London, the nature of their legal relationship had to be inferred from the parties’ conduct [45 – 46] and there was no factual basis for asserting that Uber London acted as an agent for drivers [50 – 56]. The correct inference was that Uber London contracts with passengers and engages drivers to carry out bookings for it [54 – 56]. In any event, it is wrong in principle to treat the written agreements as a starting point in deciding whether an individual is a “worker” [57, 76]. The Supreme Court considers and explains its previous decision in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 [68 – 69]. The correct approach is to consider the purpose of the relevant employment legislation [70]. That purpose is to give protection to vulnerable individuals who have little or no say over their pay and working conditions because they are in a subordinate and dependent position in relation to a person or organisation which exercises control over their work [71 – 76]. The legislation also precludes employers, frequently in a stronger bargaining position, from contracting out of these protections [79 – 82] […]”.
Comunicatul Curții poate fi consultat aici
Hotărârea poate fi consultată aici.
Te-ar putea interesa și:
[Conținutul prezentului articol nu reprezintă o consultație juridică în temeiul Legii nr. 51/1995 privind organizarea și exercitarea profesiei de avocat, iar site-ul nu își asumă răspunderea pentru conținutul publicat de autori, editori și colaboratori.]
Politica de confidențialitate, Termeni și Condiții, Politica Cookies, Politica de livrare și Politica de retur. Documente scrise de avocat.
