The ruling grants the drivers the right to holiday pay and minimum wage, which they did not have previously.
The tribunal found that “overwhelmingly, power lies with Bolt” when it comes to their drivers’ working arrangements.
“There is nothing in the relationship which demands, or even suggests, [drivers have] agency”, the tribunal report noted.
“The supposed contract between Bolt driver and the passenger is a fiction designed by Bolt – and in particular its lawyers – to defeat the argument that it has an employer/worker relationship with the driver,” it continued.
Nigel Mackay, head of employment at law firm Leigh Day, which represented the drivers, explained that the judgement was made due to the drivers’ working arrangements.
Speaking to HR magazine, he said: “[The tribunal] found that Bolt drivers met the statutory worker test, specifically that: they work under a contract with Bolt; they work personally, i.e. they can't use a substitute to do the work for them; and they are not running a business of which Bolt is their customer."
Read more: Royal Mail sued over drivers' gig economy status
This decision means that: “Bolt will become the employer and thus will have to take on the costs, obligations and responsibilities that employers have to take according to UK labour law,” Alessio Bertolini, researcher at platform economy research project Fairwork, told HR magazine.
Bolt will now have to pay increased contributions as the drivers’ employer, Bertolini explained, including holiday, sick and parental pay.
“A lot of digital labour platforms classify workers as self-employed because it's much cheaper and entails fewer obligations and risks.
“These costs and obligations have so far been borne directly by workers and, indirectly, by the state.”
HR at other organisations should look at this decision to understand whether they have correctly classified their workers, Mackay continued.
He said: “Employers and HR teams need to think very carefully before trying to rely on self-employed contractor models, where the employer closely controls the work.
“This is the case even for workers who have multiple jobs. Even though Bolt drivers tend to work for a number of different operators, this was in no way fatal to their claims. The important question is what happens during the periods they are working for Bolt, rather than other times when they may be doing other jobs.
“The tribunal found that all the controls exerted by Bolt during that time, along with all of the other circumstances, strongly weighed in favour of Bolt drivers being workers.”
Read more: Gig worker firm slated for tipping law exception claim
Employers should ensure that people classified as self-employed are given genuine agency over their work, Mackay continued.
“Clauses in contracts which are intended to avoid liability – like substitution clauses or the individual having supposed control over pricing – will only work if the individual can actually exercise those clauses,” he explained.
“Otherwise, if it is clear they are avoidance devices, they will harm the employer's case.
“Bolt said its 'Bolt Link' system, which it introduced in October 2022, allowed drivers to send in substitutes. The tribunal essentially found that this was simply a device, introduced largely to try to evade employment law, that did not in reality facilitate substitution.”
A Bolt spokesperson confirmed that they would seek grounds for appeal to the decision.
Speaking to HR magazine, they said: “Drivers are at the heart of what we do, and we have always supported the overwhelming majority’s choice to remain self-employed independent contractors, protecting their flexibility, personal control, and earning potential.
“We will continue to engage with drivers as we carefully review our options, including grounds for appeal, ensuring that we are helping drivers to succeed as entrepreneurs and grow on their own terms.”
