If it is up to the FNV union, Uber will adhere to the taxi collective labor agreement and see drivers as employees instead of self-employed people. The union is demanding this in a summons, which was delivered to the company this morning. Uber sees itself as a platform that connects supply and demand and not as the employer of the drivers.
“It is a very fundamental fight,” said FNV director Amrit Sewgobind in conversation with journalists last week. “Uber does not budge an inch. I am convinced that it is necessary to get somewhere.” Uber will have two weeks to respond to the demands, the union is strongly aware that it will end in a lawsuit.
The FNV states through its lawyer in the summons, which is in the hands of the NOS, that Uber “seriously harms drivers”. The union also demands half a million euros; which consists of compensation for hours worked by the FNV (in its own words 690 working days) and for “reputation damage and loss of recruitment power” of the union. These are standard union requirements.
A spokesperson Uber was not yet able to respond substantively to the demands of FNV.
Contact via an app
The drivers who work for Uber are in touch via an app. According to the company, they are self-employed, but according to FNV this is a sham construction. This is because the app determines which orders a driver receives at what price. In 2017, the European Court of Justice ruled that Uber is a transport company and not a brokerage service.
“These types of platforms are super easy for consumers and for workers it is also nice to get work via such an app”, says FNV colleague Marije Ottervanger, campaign leader for platform work. “The main drawback is the forced self-employment. Drivers have no right of dismissal and do not build a safety net.”
The FNV has long been concerned about how Uber deals with the drivers, says Sewgobind. “What we observe is that the drivers are taking all the blows around the corona crisis. Think of creating a safe work situation and solving the problems with leasing companies. In addition, it creates extremely unfair competition, the rates of the cheapest Uber are half the taxi fare. . “
FNV says it has built up a considerable file “in silence” over the past two years. “A majority of taxi drivers are behind us,” says Sewgobind.
Supreme Court decision
Niels van der Neut, PhD candidate in employment law at the University of Amsterdam, understands that FNV is now starting this case. “Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that the employment relationship as intended by the parties is not important, but as it is in practice.”
Van der Neut sees this statement as a helping hand for the union, because it means that it is therefore necessary to look at how Uber deals with drivers in practice. At the same time, he notes that the FNV has not yet won the case.
“They certainly have a chance. But one driver is not the other. Some do it for a few hours a week, so Uber can easily say that that person has other clients, others do it full-time.” According to Van der Neut, the question is which examples the FNV will provide.
Broader than just FNV
The desire to do something about the employment structure at Uber is broader. For example, California is already trying to force the company to do this, but it has failed. In addition to the choice between Biden and Trump, voters in the state could also determine whether Uber and similar services would be required to do so. The voter chose Uber; the obligation did not materialize. That the stakes were high is evident from the fact that Uber and other platform services together put 200 million dollars in their campaign.
In the United Kingdom, a case on the status of drivers has been brought before the Constitutional Court. And in the Netherlands, two British drivers took Uber to court this summer because they want to know how the algorithm works. Business is still ongoing.