- The Court of Cassation ruled on Wednesday that an Uber driver was actually an employee of the platform and not a self-employed person.
- It considers that there is a "link of subordination" from the driver to Uber, which characterizes the existence of an employment contract.
- The American company could therefore face an increase in litigation in the coming months.
It is a thunderbolt in the world of hybrid bikes. This Wednesday, the Court of Cassation, the highest French court of justice, ruled that a former Uber driver who was suing the platform should be considered an employee, not a self-employed worker. This judgment confirms the judgment rendered on January 10, 2019 by the Paris Court of Appeal, and against which Uber had appealed.
In its decision, the Court of Cassation validated all of the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. The latter considered that the relationship between the driver, who had taken legal action in 2017, and Uber, "can be analyzed as a contract of employment". In fact, "a sufficient body of evidence has been gathered to allow (...) to characterize the relationship of subordination" which is a determining criterion for judging whether a worker is an employee or not.
"It is an important decision because it has been a few years since Uber explained to us that what it does is perfectly legal, and today the Court of Cassation says the opposite," said Fabien Masson, 20 minutes driver's lawyer.
An economic model in question
“The driver who uses the Uber application does not constitute his own clientele, does not freely set his prices and does not determine the conditions of performance of his transport service. The route is imposed on him by the company and, if he does not follow it, tariff corrections are applied. The destination is not known to the driver, thus revealing that he cannot freely choose the route that suits him, ”explains the Cour de cassation in its press release.
In addition, “from three refusals to run, the Uber company can temporarily disconnect the driver from its application. In the event of an order cancellation rate or "problematic behavior" rate being exceeded, the driver may lose access to his account. Finally, the driver participates in an organized transport service, the Uber company of which unilaterally defines the conditions of exercise. ".
In summary, "all of these elements characterize the existence of a relationship of subordination between the driver and the company Uber". The argument advanced by the platform to counter this reasoning, namely the freedom offered to the driver to connect when he wishes to the application has been purely and simply rejected.
This decision of the Court of Cassation risks having serious consequences for the platform. Any driver of VTC working with Uber could - in theory - take legal action to request the reclassification of his contract into an employment contract. Several cases began to be studied at the industrial tribunal last year, but the judgments had not yet been rendered, for lack of agreement between the industrial tribunal advisers.
For the American platform, massive requalifications would lead to a sharp increase in costs, in particular because of social contributions to be paid for these "new" employees, rights to paid holidays, training ... Urssaf could also join the dance for request a settlement from Uber. What to question its economic model.
The American company obviously does not have the same reading of the judgment of the Court of Cassation. "We regret this decision," said Steve Salom, general manager of Uber in France, to 20 Minutes . It does not reflect at all the reason why drivers choose to use Uber, namely flexibility and independence. This decision corresponds to a particular case of a driver who was driving on the platform in 2016. The vast majority of drivers have no intention of becoming employees. This is why we are not afraid of a situation where whole waves of drivers would like to be re-qualified ”. "Uber knows that many drivers are very dependent on its application, which dissuades them from taking legal action," replies Fabien Masson.
Uber under pressure in other countries
In addition, the legal framework of platforms has evolved somewhat with the Mobilities law (LOM law) promulgated at the end of 2019. VTC drivers can no longer be penalized when they refuse a race. Platforms are also required to inform them of the price of the journey upstream, so that drivers can assess profitability. On the other hand, the Constitutional Council censured the provision of the text which provided that the establishment of "charters" by the platforms prevents the re-qualification of self-employed workers. But for Fabien Masson, “the LOM law does not modify the criteria of the link of subordination. It does not change the heart of what motivated the decision of the Court of Cassation ”.
Beyond this French decision, the Uber model is challenged in several countries. In California, a law in force since the beginning of the year has forced the platform to make adjustments: it now allows drivers from several Californian cities to set their prices, and freely refuse a race because an itinerary does not suit them not without fear of punishment. In London, Uber had its operating license withdrawn at the end of November 2019. The company has appealed, which allows it to continue operating for the moment in the British capital. Despite everything, the company, which lost 8.5 billion euros last year, still hopes to be profitable at the end of 2020.
Economy
VIDEO. Mobility law: "Platform workers will regain control and will be able to claim more things"
Economy
Deliveroo: The company condemned in France for hidden work
- Economy
- Employees
- Court of Cassation
- Uber
- Vtc