This decision on the test of employment relationships may be important for many self-employed drivers. Whether an Uber driver has an employment contract with Uber may depend on whether the driver acts as an entrepreneur in the course of business. This may include circumstances beyond the relationship between the driver and Uber. This is how the Supreme Court ruled on 21 February 2025.
The case
Drivers who provide taxi transport through the Uber app under an agreement with Uber are doing so as independent contractors, not as employees of Uber, according to Uber's terms and conditions. Trade union FNV finds that employment contracts exist between Uber and the drivers. FNV claimed that the court should declare that the CAO Taxi Transport applies to the drivers and that Uber should be ordered to fully comply with this CAO. The court granted these demands. On appeal, the Court of Appeal referred questions to the Supreme Court.
The questions
The questions are about how the Supreme Court's Deliveroo ruling should be understood. The Deliveroo judgment was about whether Deliveroo delivery drivers are working on the basis of an employment contract. Whether an employment contract exists, according to the Deliveroo judgment, depends on all the circumstances of the case. In the Deliveroo judgment, the Supreme Court mentioned a number of specific circumstances that may be relevant. Among other things, it may be important whether the person performing the work behaves or can behave as an entrepreneur ('entrepreneurship') in economic life.
The first question is whether the 'entrepreneurship' of the worker can be decisive in determining whether or not there is an employment contract.
The second question is whether an affirmative answer to the first question means that the employment relationship of a worker without 'entrepreneurship' is an employment contract, while the employment relationship of another worker, with 'entrepreneurship', is not an employment contract, even though they do the same work for the same client.
The third question is whether 'entrepreneurship' as mentioned in the Deliveroo judgment is limited to aspects that occur in the employment relationship between the worker and the client, or whether aspects outside that specific employment relationship are also relevant.
Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court answered the questions as follows.
In the Deliveroo judgment, the Supreme Court did not rank the circumstances relevant for assessing whether there is an employment contract. Thus, the circumstance of 'entrepreneurship' is no less important than the other circumstances. The Supreme Court sees no reason for such an order of precedence now either. It cannot be ruled out that for the answer to the question of whether a contract is an employment contract, it is decisive whether the employee acts or can act as an entrepreneur in the course of business, even if other circumstances point to an employment contract.
It may therefore arise that the employment relationship in respect of the same work, performed for the same client, is not an employment contract for a worker with 'entrepreneurship' and it is for a worker without 'entrepreneurship'.
'Entrepreneurship' within the meaning of the Deliveroo judgment refers to the general (entrepreneurial) situation of the worker and can therefore also cover circumstances outside the specific relationship between the worker and his client.
Note: For many self-employed persons and their clients, this decision could be of great significance. Judges who have to decide similar cases will take this Supreme Court ruling into account.
EN 
NL 
ES 