Thousands of Uber drivers in Britain will have to wait until October to learn whether they have succeeded in proving the ride-hailing company is their employer.
In a landmark case at the UK Supreme Court Uber is appealing against a previous tribunal ruling that its drivers are its employees, entitling them to Britain’s minimum wage and holiday pay.
If the case is upheld, the GMB union, which represents drivers, said Uber could be forced to pay drivers £12,000 each in compensation and the case would have wider implications for millions of people working in the gig economy.
"Uber has spent a small fortune using the legal system instead of accepting its responsibilities to our members," Susan Harris, GMB legal director, told The National.
“But they have reached the end of the road. We will continue to ask them to sit down with GMB to make sure drivers get the benefits to which they are entitled."
If Uber’s appeal is rejected the case will return to Britain’s Employment Appeal Tribunal, which will decide how much compensation drivers are entitled to.
The two-day appeal ended on Wednesday.
Jason Galbraith Marten QC, representing two of the appellants, urged the court to dismiss Uber’s appeal and accused it of “having its cake and eating it”.
“The claimants are workers and the tribunal was right to reach that conclusion,” he told the court on Wednesday.
“I invite your lordships to find that the Employment Tribunal was right to find that the claimants meet the statutory requirements of a worker and to dismiss the appeal.”
Uber’s legal team had told the court that the UK's National Minimum Wage Act did not extend to its drivers and there was "no warrant" to adopt it in this case.
On behalf of Uber, Dinah Rose QC told the court the appeal should be allowed.
“Our submission, on the only reasonable view of the facts, is on the evidence there was no undertaking by the drivers to work at all except after they had accepted a trip. There was no obligation for a driver to work for anybody,” she added on Wednesday.
Lord Reed told the parties the court will now consider the case.
"This is obviously a very important and interesting case and we will now take time to consider your submissions," he said.
The two former UK Uber drivers first won their employment tribunal against the company in 2016 to show they were employees and entitled to benefits, such as earning the minimum wage and holiday pay.
Despite two further appeals by Uber, the tribunal and the Court of Appeal have upheld the decision.
The latest hearing is Uber’s last roll of the dice to defend its business model in Britain as the Supreme Court's decision will be final and cannot be appealed.
Uber says its practices have been used for decades by private-hire vehicles known as minicabs, which cannot be hailed in the street like traditional taxis, and that drivers earn on average more than the minimum wage alongside other benefits.
A judgment is not expected until at least October.
A comparison of sending Dh20,000 from the UAE using two different routes at the same time - the first direct from a UAE bank to a bank in Germany, and the second from the same UAE bank via an online platform to Germany - found key differences in cost and speed. The transfers were both initiated on January 30.
Route 1: bank transfer
The UAE bank charged Dh152.25 for the Dh20,000 transfer. On top of that, their exchange rate margin added a difference of around Dh415, compared with the mid-market rate.
Total cost: Dh567.25 - around 2.9 per cent of the total amount
Total received: €4,670.30
Route 2: online platform
The UAE bank’s charge for sending Dh20,000 to a UK dirham-denominated account was Dh2.10. The exchange rate margin cost was Dh60, plus a Dh12 fee.
Total cost: Dh74.10, around 0.4 per cent of the transaction
Total received: €4,756
The UAE bank transfer was far quicker – around two to three working days, while the online platform took around four to five days, but was considerably cheaper. In the online platform transfer, the funds were also exposed to currency risk during the period it took for them to arrive.
UAE currency: the story behind the money in your pockets
Investors: Palestine’s Ibtikar Fund, Abu Dhabi’s Gothams and angel investors
Key figures in the life of the fort
Sheikh Dhiyab bin Isa (ruled 1761-1793) Built Qasr Al Hosn as a watchtower to guard over the only freshwater well on Abu Dhabi island.
Sheikh Shakhbut bin Dhiyab (ruled 1793-1816) Expanded the tower into a small fort and transferred his ruling place of residence from Liwa Oasis to the fort on the island.
Sheikh Tahnoon bin Shakhbut (ruled 1818-1833) Expanded Qasr Al Hosn further as Abu Dhabi grew from a small village of palm huts to a town of more than 5,000 inhabitants.
Sheikh Khalifa bin Shakhbut (ruled 1833-1845) Repaired and fortified the fort.
Sheikh Saeed bin Tahnoon (ruled 1845-1855) Turned Qasr Al Hosn into a strong two-storied structure.
Sheikh Zayed bin Khalifa (ruled 1855-1909) Expanded Qasr Al Hosn further to reflect the emirate's increasing prominence.
Sheikh Shakhbut bin Sultan (ruled 1928-1966) Renovated and enlarged Qasr Al Hosn, adding a decorative arch and two new villas.
Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan (ruled 1966-2004) Moved the royal residence to Al Manhal palace and kept his diwan at Qasr Al Hosn.
