重新评估南非Uber司机的就业状况:来自英国和新西兰的经验

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
Kamalesh Newaj
{"title":"重新评估南非Uber司机的就业状况:来自英国和新西兰的经验","authors":"Kamalesh Newaj","doi":"10.25159/2522-3062/12748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"South Africa (SA), like the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand (NZ), makes use of the services of Uber, which is a taxi or transportation service that connects the transport provider and passengers via a mobile application. Uber has defined itself as a technology company, as opposed to a transportation company, to avoid attracting employer status. In 2018 the Labour Court (LC) in SA was called upon to determine whether Uber drivers are independent contractors or employees. The definition is vital because employee status confers legislative protection, such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Somewhat surprisingly, the LC failed to come to the aid of the drivers, despite the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) affording them employee status. The UK and NZ similarly had to contend with disputes from Uber drivers. In the UK, the Supreme Court (SC) confirmed the findings of the Employment Tribunal, affording the drivers worker status. The Employment Court in NZ similarly declared drivers as employees. Considering the growth in the use of Uber and the growing traction of other forms of platform work, this article seeks to critically evaluate the South African position, considering the recent decisions in the UK and NZ.","PeriodicalId":29899,"journal":{"name":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-evaluating the Employment Status of Uber Drivers in South Africa: Lessons from the United Kingdom and New Zealand\",\"authors\":\"Kamalesh Newaj\",\"doi\":\"10.25159/2522-3062/12748\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"South Africa (SA), like the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand (NZ), makes use of the services of Uber, which is a taxi or transportation service that connects the transport provider and passengers via a mobile application. Uber has defined itself as a technology company, as opposed to a transportation company, to avoid attracting employer status. In 2018 the Labour Court (LC) in SA was called upon to determine whether Uber drivers are independent contractors or employees. The definition is vital because employee status confers legislative protection, such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Somewhat surprisingly, the LC failed to come to the aid of the drivers, despite the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) affording them employee status. The UK and NZ similarly had to contend with disputes from Uber drivers. In the UK, the Supreme Court (SC) confirmed the findings of the Employment Tribunal, affording the drivers worker status. The Employment Court in NZ similarly declared drivers as employees. Considering the growth in the use of Uber and the growing traction of other forms of platform work, this article seeks to critically evaluate the South African position, considering the recent decisions in the UK and NZ.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29899,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/12748\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/12748","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

南非(SA)与英国(UK)和新西兰(NZ)一样,使用优步(Uber)的服务,优步是一种出租车或交通服务,通过移动应用程序连接交通提供商和乘客。优步将自己定义为一家科技公司,而不是一家运输公司,以避免吸引雇主身份。2018年,南非劳工法院(LC)被要求确定优步司机是独立承包商还是雇员。这一定义至关重要,因为雇员身份赋予了立法保护,例如不被不公平解雇的权利。令人惊讶的是,尽管调解、调解和仲裁委员会(CCMA)为司机提供了雇员身份,但LC未能帮助他们。英国和新西兰同样不得不应对优步司机的纠纷。在英国,最高法院(SC)确认了就业法庭的调查结果,给予司机工人身份。新西兰就业法院同样宣布司机为雇员。考虑到优步使用量的增长和其他形式平台工作的吸引力的增长,本文试图批判性地评估南非的立场,并考虑到英国和新西兰最近的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Re-evaluating the Employment Status of Uber Drivers in South Africa: Lessons from the United Kingdom and New Zealand
South Africa (SA), like the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand (NZ), makes use of the services of Uber, which is a taxi or transportation service that connects the transport provider and passengers via a mobile application. Uber has defined itself as a technology company, as opposed to a transportation company, to avoid attracting employer status. In 2018 the Labour Court (LC) in SA was called upon to determine whether Uber drivers are independent contractors or employees. The definition is vital because employee status confers legislative protection, such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Somewhat surprisingly, the LC failed to come to the aid of the drivers, despite the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) affording them employee status. The UK and NZ similarly had to contend with disputes from Uber drivers. In the UK, the Supreme Court (SC) confirmed the findings of the Employment Tribunal, affording the drivers worker status. The Employment Court in NZ similarly declared drivers as employees. Considering the growth in the use of Uber and the growing traction of other forms of platform work, this article seeks to critically evaluate the South African position, considering the recent decisions in the UK and NZ.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信