On 8th November 2024, the London Central Employment Tribunal published the Reserved Judgement of the Preliminary Hearing on Worker Status in drivers’ long-running litigation against Bolt. The full judgement can be read here. These claims were first brought to the Employment Tribunal by Dallas McMillan in 2021.
This type of litigation from the gig economy is not new. Previous precedents were set in the cases of Uber BV and Others v Aslam and Others and Addison Lee v Lange, both of which concluded that drivers working from the driving apps associated with both companies could be classed as workers.
In this case, however, Bolt sought throughout the litigation to maintain the argument that their drivers were self-employed contractors and that their terms and conditions established this. Moreover, Bolt argued that the gig economy landscape in which these drivers work had changed significantly since the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Uber and Addison Lee cases.
In August 2024, Bolt introduced a scheme called “Bolt Boost” in which they agreed to top up any drivers’ earnings to the applicable National Living Wage level, and to also contribute 12.07% of drivers’ fees to a holiday fund. Despite introducing this scheme, Bolt argued the scheme itself did not mean that they were conceding that their drivers were workers.
Furthermore, Bolt also argued that the introduction of another scheme called “Bolt Link” in October 2022 “had the effect of ‘negating an obligation of personal service’ and thus was ‘fatal’ to the Claimants’ case on worker status” (paragraph 69 of the Judgement). In essence, Bolt Link allows a Bolt driver to permit another registered driver to access their account and complete journeys on their behalf.
The claimants argued that the facts of this case were indistinguishable from other cases of a similar nature. As a result, the drivers should be classed as workers and entitled to employment rights such as National Minimum Wage and Holiday Pay.
In the Judgement, the Tribunal determined that Bolt drivers are workers when they are:
(a) driving within the area in which they are licenced to operate,
(b) online on the Bolt app,
(c) ready, willing and able to accept trips and,
(d) not multi-apping.
This means that, in line with previous precedent set, Bolt drivers can be classed as workers as opposed to self-employed contractors. This judgement will have an impact on every one of the approximately 100,000 Bolt drivers within the UK.
The outcome of the Bolt case is not wholly surprising. The facts and circumstances of this case were materially similar to the previous Uber and Addison Lee cases, in which it was concluded that drivers were workers.
The judgement is undoubtedly a positive outcome for the gig economy, which is often comprised of workers on low wages with significant job instability. Further litigation is ongoing of a similar nature against other Private Hire Operators such as Veezu and FreeNow. The precedent set by this judgement is of great assistance to other drivers working in this industry seeking to be classified as workers and afforded employment protections in a precarious industry.
What is still to be determined, however, is what remedy is owed to each of the drivers. The Judge in Bolt acknowledged the practical difficulties of such a calculation and, therefore, this may not be the end of the journey for the drivers.
By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://www.dallasmcmillan.co.uk/
