Is UberEATS a good job for drivers

Cantonal court of Vaud confirms: Uber driver in employment

The ruling is considered to be groundbreaking for Switzerland. The driver worked 50.2 hours per week for Rasier Operations, a subsidiary of Uber, from April 2015 to December 2016. Accordingly, according to the lawyer, this was his main activity. At the end of 2016, the driver's account was deactivated because of complaints against him. This termination with immediate effect was not justified, the Lausanne labor court had found. The person concerned was not aware of the allegations and was therefore unable to react.

The court therefore ordered the Uber subsidiary to pay the driver around 19,000 francs. This sum is made up of a two-month salary for statutory vacation and compensation. According to lawyer Rémy Wyler, however, the most important thing about the case is that the labor court had ruled that, due to the company's organization, drivers are not self-employed, but employees.

Unia demands proper employment contracts

In a response on Tuesday, the Unia union called on Uber to “immediately issue proper employment contracts to all of its drivers and to retrospectively pay them the wages, expenses and social security contributions to which they are entitled”. The cantons must ensure that Uber adheres to the law. According to Unia, according to calculations by Unia, the classification as employees or employed persons would give Uber drivers legal rights to social security contributions, a reasonable wage, paid vacation, reimbursement of expenses such as car and mobile phone costs Uber owes its several thousand drivers in Switzerland for the period 2013 to 2020 several hundred million francs. Uber employees are also entitled to these retrospectively, emphasizes the union.

In Geneva, Uber Eats' 500 couriers have been treated as employees since the beginning of September. The Geneva administrative court ruled in mid-June that Uber Eats was an employer and therefore had to employ its food couriers. The delivery service objected to this ruling before the Federal Administrative Court. Because this did not have a suspensive effect, Uber Eats had to adhere to the cantonal regulations. (sda / he)