Johnson v GT Gettaxi [2024] EAT 162

Facts

In Johnson v GT Gettaxi, the Employment Appeal Tribunal determined that the Claimant was not an employee of the Respondent. The Respondent managed an application that enabled the public to request black cabs instead of flagging them down on the street. Licensed black cab drivers may register for the driver application.

The Claimant was a licensed taxi driver. He utilised the Respondent's application from April 2015 to 2017. His application to utilise the app in 2020 was denied upon re-submission. He asserted that this was due to his making protected disclosures. This raised an initial question regarding the Claimant's status as a worker.

Held

The case clearly mirrored Uber v Aslam, in which the Supreme Court determined that Uber drivers were classified as workers. Both the employment tribunal and the EAT determined that the Claimant was not an employee of the Respondent, and that the Respondent's drivers, in general, were not employees. They operated independently as black taxi drivers. The use of the Respondent's application was only a strategy to augment their revenue. The subsequent points were pertinent to this conclusion:

• The Respondent did not apply any penalty for declined ride offers. This signified that the Claimant was operating independently.

• The Claimant had the autonomy to choose the routes he deemed optimal, and there was no consequence for deviating from the GPS route, in contrast to Uber.

• The Claimant received restricted information regarding passengers upon fare acceptance. The Claimant was unrestricted in arranging direct trips with passengers.

• Drivers could augment their income by operating as traditional black taxi drivers or by registering with alternative applications. This differed from Uber, as Uber drivers were not permitted to solicit passengers in the same manner as a traditional black cab.

Comment

A recent judgement confirmed that a driver utilising a black cab application was not classified as a worker. The judgment in Aslam was fact specific, when trying to determine “Employee Status”.