Contact

Our Employment have advised and continue to advise Uber B.V.

Back to top

Our Employment have advised and continue to advise Uber B.V.

Our team have advised and continue to advise Uber B.V., a legal entity resident in the Netherlands; and Uber South Africa Technology Services (Pty) Ltd.

23 Aug 2019 2 min read Featured work

Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr have advised and continue to advise Uber B.V., a legal entity resident in the Netherlands; and Uber South Africa Technology Services (Pty) Ltd, a legal entity resident in South Africa, regarding Uber B.V.'s smartphone application ("the Uber App") that connects independent operators with riders in South Africa.  Our employment team has been leading work for these clients regarding the status of partner-drivers and drivers in South Africa.  This includes advising on whether partner-drivers and drivers may be found to be employees under South African employment law.  We were successful in obtaining a ground-breaking judgment before the Labour Court that the affected partner-drivers and drivers are not employees of Uber SA.  We have also advised on the partner-drivers’ and drivers’ endeavours to unionise and the organisation's strategy and response to unionisation as well as other employee-related issues in South Africa. 

Seven drivers and their unions referred alleged unfair dismissal disputes to arbitration under the auspices of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), alleging that Uber SA was their employer.  Uber SA disputed this claim in an important test case.  In July 2017, the CCMA ruled in favour of the partner-drivers and drivers, finding that they were the employees of Uber SA.  Uber SA made an application to the Labour Court, which reviewed and set aside the CCMA's ruling, finding that the affected partner-drivers and drivers were not employees of Uber SA.  Drivers have since referred alleged unfair dismissal disputes against Netherlands-based Uber B.V., which we represented in disputes which examined the drivers’ relationship with Uber B.V. (as opposed to Uber SA).  The status of Uber B.V.'s partner-drivers and drivers has received significant attention in the media globally and has been challenged in countries around the world.  We were successful in defending the claim before the CCMA.  The Labour Relations Act, 1995 was found not to apply and accordingly, the CCMA had no jurisdiction in relation to Uber B.V.  Both this CCMA ruling and the judgment of the Labour Court are critical to Uber’s continued operation in South Africa

You might also be interested in

27 Jun 2023

by Corné Lewis and Tiffany Alves

Dear friends with money: Are you a registered credit provider?

Have you ever lent money to a friend or family member who did not hold up their end of the deal to pay you back? Or perhaps you have sent them a letter of demand, and even threatened to sue your friend for the money they owe you? If you have concluded a contract, and provided that all elements of a valid contract are present, you would ordinarily be able to bring an action on breach of contract. However, the High Court, in the case of Blacher v Josephson (A15/22) ZAWCHC 27 (14 February 2023), has shed light on this grey area of law.

Dispute Resolution

3 min read

21 Jun 2023

by Andries le Grange

Ain’t no appeal wide enough: New rules for appeals arising from market inquiries

The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) has recently announced the release of new Rules Pertaining to Appeals Arising From Market Inquiries Before the Competition Tribunal (Appeal Rules). The Appeal Rules regulate the procedure in appealing determinations made by the Competition Commission (Commission) in a market inquiry.

Competition Law

8 min read

18 Oct 2023

by Lucinde Rhoodie and Luke Kleinsmidt

Undoing what has been done: Setting aside transactions in terms of the Insolvency Act

The Western Cape High Court recently illustrated that timing and the nature of a transaction are key when relying on section 26(1) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (Act) for the purpose of setting aside voidable dispositions.

Business Rescue, Restructuring & Insolvency

4 min read

28 Feb 2024

by Roux van der Merwe and Yaniv Kleitman

To survive, or not to survive? Some conditions precedent pitfalls to look out for

One of the important aspects of written agreements being subject to the fulfilment or waiver of certain agreed conditions precedent, or suspensive conditions, (CPs) before the substantive provisions of the agreement become of force and effect, is the so-called “ surviving provisions/clauses ” (also known as “ immediately effective provisions/clauses ”). In the ordinary course, the crux of the transaction contemplated in such an agreement and the clauses relating to it are suspended from the signature date until all of the CPs are fulfilled or waived (if permissible and applicable) by an agreed date or dates (fulfilment date). If all of the CPs are not fulfilled or waived by the fulfilment date, the agreement effectively falls away and will be of no force or effect. However, it should be borne in mind that the parties to an agreement with CPs may very well intend for certain of the clauses in the agreement to come into force and effect from the signature date of the agreement and to survive the falling away of the substantive provisions due to non-fulfilment of theCPs. 

Corporate & Commercial Law

6 min read

11 May 2023

by Jackwell Feris

Understanding the importance of the European Delegated Acts for the developing green hydrogen industry in Africa

As part of the European Commission’s (the Commission) REPowerEU plan to scale-up the production and use of renewable hydrogen, ammonia and other derivatives in the European Union (EU) the Commission adopted two European Delegated Acts (Acts) in February 2023. The Acts includes a set of rules and guidelines for the certification of green hydrogen produced within the EU, as well as imported hydrogen from other countries, such as Namibia and South Africa.

Industrials, Manufacturing & Trade

7 min read

6 Jul 2023

by Nicholas Carroll and Louis Botha

When sharing isn’t caring: A judgment on South Africa’s exchange control rules

Each South African resident natural person is afforded an annual single discretionary allowance of R1 million (SDA) by the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) under section B.4(A) of the Currency and Exchanges Manual for Authorised Dealers (Manual). As discussed in previous alerts, the Manual contains the exceptions and permissions that are contemplated in the Exchange Control Regulations, 1961 Regulations. The SDA can be used for any legal purpose abroad, including when travelling overseas, for making offshore investments, and for generally remitting funds offshore as may be necessary and as is permitted.

Tax & Exchange Control

6 min read

This website uses cookies to enhance the browsing experience. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.

Accept Decline