Uber is accused of using "sophisticated questions" in an investigation it sent to drivers, after a court ruling ruled that the company should offer employees better working conditions.
The company may have to pay more than 100 10.000 million in compensation to XNUMX drivers after the UK Supreme Court ruled in favor of last week that they are entitled to leave allowance and the national minimum wage. Uber previously claimed that its 60.000 drivers at United Kingdom are self-employed with limited employment rights.
A questionnaire, sent through the application of Uber drivers after the decision, offers a limited selection of answers to questions about benefits and flexible working without mentioning leave allowance or national minimum wage.
Steve Garelick, a regional organizer of the GMB association, said: "These questions are very sophisticated and the company aims to get the απαντήσεις that is needed."
He said the way Uber was asked could hopefully put pressure on government for a change in the rules to suit its existing working conditions practices and not to change its practices in order to Pair with the rules.
James Farrar, one of the main plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case and general secretary of the Association of Drivers and Couriers, said: "The investigation into the drivers is a crude effort Uber to divert attention from its obligation to comply with the Supreme Court ruling and to immediately apply the legal protection of employee status to all its drivers. Instead, Uber creates the hard-to-manipulate false choice between justice and flexibility loading research with prejudices and sophisticated questions. "
Nigel Mackay, an associate at law firm Leigh Day, represents more than 1.000 drivers seeking compensation for lost license fees after the Supreme Court ruling.
An Uber spokesman said: "We are currently studying the details and listening to all the active drivers to help us shape the future of flexible working. We will announce the conclusions of this process in the coming weeks. "
Mackay said that their views people on benefits did not matter as the rules were enshrined in law and the investigation appears to be exposed for public relations purposes.
Source of information: theguardian.com