Re-evaluating the Employment Status of Uber Drivers in South Africa: Lessons from the United Kingdom and New Zealand

Kamalesh Newaj

doi:10.25159/2522-3062/12748

Authors

Kamalesh Newaj University of Pretoria https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6311-998X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/12748

Keywords:

Workers, employees, Uber, Labour Relations Act, Employment Rights Act, Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, Employment Tribunal, technology, transportation

Abstract

South Africa (SA), like the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand (NZ), makes use of the services of Uber, which is a taxi or transportation service that connects the transport provider and passengers via a mobile application. Uber has defined itself as a technology company, as opposed to a transportation company, to avoid attracting employer status. In 2018 the Labour Court (LC) in SA was called upon to determine whether Uber drivers are independent contractors or employees. The definition is vital because employee status confers legislative protection, such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Somewhat surprisingly, the LC failed to come to the aid of the drivers, despite the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) affording them employee status. The UK and NZ similarly had to contend with disputes from Uber drivers. In the UK, the Supreme Court (SC) confirmed the findings of the Employment Tribunal, affording the drivers worker status. The Employment Court in NZ similarly declared drivers as employees. Considering the growth in the use of Uber and the growing traction of other forms of platform work, this article seeks to critically evaluate the South African position, considering the recent decisions in the UK and NZ.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Benjamin P, ‘An Accident of History: Who Is (And Who Should be) an Employee under SA Labour Law’ (2004) 25 Industrial Law Journal.

Du Toit D, ‘Platform Work and Social Justice’ (2019) 40 Industrial Law Journal.

Du Toit D, Fredman S and Graham M, ‘Towards Legal Regulation of Platform Work: Theory and Practice’ (2020) 41 Industrial Law Journal.

Du Toit D, Godfrey S and Cooper C, Labour Relations Law A Comprehensive Guide (6th edn, Lexis Nexis 2015).

Fredman S and Du Toit D, ‘One Small Step Towards Decent Work: Uber v Aslam in the Court of Appeal’ 2019 48(2) Industrial Law Journal (UK) <https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwz011> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwz011

Govindjee A, ‘Extending Social Protection in the Digital Age: The Case of Transportation Network Company Drivers in SA’ (2020) 83 Tydskrif vir die Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg.

Heyns C and Brand D, ‘Introduction to Socio-Economic Rights in the SA Constitution’ (1998) 2 Law, Democracy & Development.

Kubjana LL and Khumalo B, ‘A Rose By Any Other Name Would Smell as Sweet: Universal Church of the Kingdom of God v Myeni & Others’ (2015) 36 ILJ 2832 (LAC)’ (2017) South African Mercantile Law Journal.

Lattova S, ‘Online Platforms and ‘Dependent Work’ after Uber’ (2021) 15 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology <https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2021-2-3> DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2021-2-3

Malherbe K, ‘Somewhere Uber the Rainbow: Seeking New Ways of Regulating New Forms of Work in SA’ (2018) 4 Revue de Droit Comparé Du Travail et de la Sécurité Sociale <https://doi.org/10.4000/rdctss.1818> DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rdctss.1818

Marcano IJ, ‘E-Hailing and Employment Rights: The Case for an Employment Relationship between Uber and its Drivers in SA’ (2018) 51 (1) Cornell International Law Journal.

McGaughey E, ‘Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality, and the Duty not to Misrepresent Employment Status’ (2019) 48(2) Industrial Law Journal (UK) <https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwy014> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwy014

Mokoena K, ‘Are Uber Drivers Employees? A Look at Emerging Business Models and Whether They Can Be Accommodated by South African Labour Law’ (2016) 37 Industrial Law Journal.

Rautenbach C, ‘The South African Constitutional Court’s Use of Foreign Precedent in Matters of Religion: Without Fear or Favour?’ 2015 18(5) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal <https://doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v18i5.10> DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v18i5.10

Rodgers L, ‘The Uberization of Work Case Cevelopments in the UK’ [Online] (2019) 4 Revue de Droit Comparé du Travail et de la Sécurité Sociale <https://doi.org/10.4000/rdctss.1416> DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rdctss.1416

Thornicroft K, ‘Uber Technologies Inc v Heller: Implications for Ride-Hailing Drivers in British Columbia’ (2021) 79(3) Advocate (Vancouver).

Van Eck S and Nemusimbori NE, ‘Uber Drivers: Sad to Say, But Not Employees of Uber SA’ (2018) 81(3) Tydskrif vir die Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg.

Van Niekerk A, Smit N, Christianson M, McGregor M and Van Eck S, Law@Work (5th edn, Juta 2019)

Webber Wentzel, ‘Uber Drivers in SA: Employees or Independent Contractors?’, <https://www.webberwentzel.com/News/Pages/uber-drivers-in-south-africa-employees-or-independent-contrac tors.aspx> accessed 10 October 2022.

Case Law

Arachchige v Rasier New Zealand Ltd [2020] NZEmpC 230.

Discovery Health Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2008) 29 ILJ 1480 (LC).

E TU INC & ANOR v Rasier Operations BV & Ors [2022] NZEmpC 192 EMPC 230/2021.

Footwear Trading CC v Mdlalose (2005) 26 ILJ 443 (LAC) <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.04.003>

Kylie v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2010) 31 ILJ 1600 (LAC).

Masoga and Another v Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd and Others (2019) 40 ILJ 2707 (LAC).

Monare v SA Tourism (2016) 37 ILJ 394 (LAC).

NUPSAW obo Mostert v Uber SA Technology Services (Pty) Ltd and others [2018] JOL 55085 (CCMA).

Smit v Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (1979) 1 SA 51 (A).

State Information Technology Agency v CCMA [2008] 7 BLLR 611 (LAC).

Uber v Aslam [2017] IRLR 4.

Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5, para 43 and Uber SA Technology Services (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Public Service and Allied Workers (NUPSAW) and Others [2018] 4 BLLR 399 (LC).

Uber SA Technological Services (Pty) Ltd / National Union of Public Service and Allied Workers and South African Transport and Allied Workers Union obo Morekure and others [2017] 11 BALR 1247 (CCMA).

Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5.

Workforce Group v CCMA (2012) 33 ILJ 738 (LC) <https://doi.org/10.1109/LED.2012.2196153>

Universal Church of the Kingdom of God v Myeni and Others (2015) 36 ILJ 2832 (LAC).

The National Minimum Wage Act 9 of 2018.

Codes of Good Practice

The Code of Good Practice: Who is an Employee? as published under Government Notice 1774 dated 1 December 2006.

The Code of Good Practice for the regulation of platform work in South Africa drafted by Du Toit D, Fredman S, Bhatia G, Cherupara-Vaddekkethil A and Osiki A with the assistance of Graham M and Howson K (The Fairwork Project) dated October 2020.

International Labour Organisation (ILO) Recommendations and Reports

Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006 (No. 198).

Work for a brighter future – Global Commission on the Future of Work, International Labour Office – Geneva (ILO 2019).

Legislation

The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 1997 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v075n016.p063

<https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v075n016.p063>

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

The Employment Relations Act 24 2000.

The Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Labour Relations Act 66 1995.