EAT rules against worker status for black cab driver
The Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Johnson v GT Gettaxi highlights the complexities of worker classification in the gig economy and its implications for app-based black cab drivers.
The significance of worker status
In the UK, worker status represents a hybrid category between employment and self-employment. Workers are entitled to limited statutory rights, such as the National Minimum Wage and paid annual leave, while maintaining some autonomy. This hybrid nature is designed to protect individuals performing services under a contract where they lack full independence.
Factual background
The case of Johnson v GT Gettaxi, Mr. Johnson, a licensed black cab driver, used the GT Gettaxi app between 2015 and 2017 to secure rides, which accounted for around 5% of his earnings during that period. The app connects customers with black cab drivers, allowing drivers to accept bookings via the platform while continuing to ply for hire traditionally, use other taxi apps, and arrange private trips.
In 2020, Mr. Johnson’s application to rejoin the platform was rejected. He claimed this refusal was retaliatory, alleging it stemmed from protected disclosures he had made. Under UK whistleblowing laws, such claims depend on worker or employee status, which became the central issue in the case.
Tribunal and EAT findings
The Employment Tribunal determined that Mr. Johnson was not a worker but an independent contractor. Drivers using the app retained significant autonomy, including the freedom to decline rides without penalty, choose their routes, and use competing platforms. Key regulatory obligations, such as charging metered fares and accepting trips within defined parameters, arose from Transport for London (TfL) rules rather than directives from GT Gettaxi.
The Tribunal found that GT Gettaxi’s limited control over drivers was inconsistent with worker status. Drivers operated as independent businesses, using the app as a supplementary tool rather than being dependent on it for their primary income. Mr. Johnson appealed this decision to the EAT.
The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision, agreeing that the relationship between GT Gettaxi and its drivers was materially different from cases like Uber v Aslam. In contrast to Uber, GT Gettaxi did not impose operational constraints such as mandatory acceptance rates or set routes. The EAT emphasised that determining worker status requires a fact-specific analysis of the degree of control and the overall relationship. Mr. Johnson’s use of the app as a minor part of his business further supported the conclusion that he was not a worker.
Learning points for employers
This case underscores the importance of evaluating the degree of control exerted over individuals using app-based systems. While cases like Uber v Aslam demonstrate how platform control can establish worker status, GT Gettaxi’s more hands-off approach allowed its drivers to retain independent contractor status.
In respect of the whistleblowing framework, this case highlights the limits of statutory protection. UK law ties whistleblowing rights to employment or worker status, meaning individuals who fall outside these categories cannot normally rely on such protections. Employers should remain mindful of these boundaries while ensuring that internal policies encourage transparency and safeguard against retaliation, regardless of statutory requirements.
For more information or advice, please contact Georgia Blesson in our Employment team on 07340 631 557, or complete the form below.