Abstract
This article analyses two of the major digital platforms dealing with transport: Uber and FlixBus. It reconstructs the nature of these platforms as transportation companies and studies their structures. It finds that such companies can assume ‘trilateral’ or ‘quadrilateral’ structures, depending on the subjects involved, with different consequences for labour relations. Following on from this, the article investigates the applicability of labour law in such structures, searching for an employment relationship in ‘trilateral’ structures and identifying the real employer in ‘quadrilateral’ structures.
Highlights
Analyses of work on digital platforms are often focused on the legal status of the relationship between platforms and workers.1 In some cases, the question ‘who is the employer?’ has been raised, in relation to the ‘trilateral’ structure of these relationships, which makes it difficult to understand whether the employer is the platform or the client (Prassl & Risak, 2016)
Focusing on the Italian system, it is interesting to see that such legislation gives some information about the juridical nature of the drivers’ labour relationships because it allows for these activities to be exercised, in general terms in three different ways: as craft enterprises, as cooperative societies or as entrepreneurs.This heterogeneity means that the application of the transport status provision does not lead to a general solution that can determine the legal status of Uber drivers, because under this law they could be formally either entrepreneurs or working partners, who, under Italian labour law,24 may be employees to whom the related national collective agreements25 are applied
We have seen that Uber and FlixBus are employers when they have a direct relationship with drivers and when they adopt a ‘quadrilateral’ structure, namely when some of the employers’ functions are shared with partner companies
Summary
Analyses of work on digital platforms are often focused on the legal status of the relationship between platforms and workers.1 In some cases, the question ‘who is the employer?’ has been raised, in relation to the ‘trilateral’ structure of these relationships (platform–worker–client), which makes it difficult to understand whether the employer is the platform or the client (Prassl & Risak, 2016). Beyond the competition law consequences of these decisions, it is interesting to see how the statement about the transport company nature of Uber can affect FlixBus. FlixBus controls the quality of buses, sets timetables and fares.18 it exercises its power over labour relationships by fixing working time19 and laying down specific requirements for hiring and the tasks of workers.20 In this sense, even if FlixBus does not deal directly with transportation, claiming to deal only with logistics, booking and commercialisation, it imposes its supply conditions onto the enterprises it controls, establishing a strong nexus with their transportation performance; FlixBus activities cannot survive and make no sense without those of the partner companies.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
