iSPECIAL MOBILITY ECOSYSTEM
Human Capital Deployment Strategy
OPINION: EMPLOYEES VS SELF EMPLOYED WORKERS
INTRODUCTION:
"While gig workers are often viewed as "Self-Employed Persons" or "Independent Contractors" in many jurisdictions and are unable to enjoy protections under labour law, a recent UK Supreme Court decision classified UBER drivers as "Workers" and ruled that they are entitled to a minimum wage, paid leave, and other legal protection. Although the decision is not binding on Ugandan Courts, it is persuasive and sheds light on the classifications of gig workers in general and also has an impact on technology enabled work." – SIGNUM ADVOCATES
Complementary Labour Law Research:
■ UK Statutory Provisions and other standing Case Law:
AUTHORITY 1: CLYDE & CO. LLP AND ANOR (RESPONDENTS) VS BATES VAN WINKELHOF (APPELLANT) [2014] UKSC 32
Paragraph 24:
"First, The natural and ordinary meaning of 'employed by' is employed under a Contract of Service. Our law draws a clear distinction between those who are so employed and those who are Self-Employed but enter into contracts to perform work or services for others."
Paragraph 25:
"Second, within the latter class, law now draws a distinction between two different kinds of Self-Employed people. One kind are people who carry on a profession or a business undertaking on their own account and enter into contracts with clients or customers to provide work or services for them. The arbitrators in Hashwani V Jivraj (London Court of International Arbitration Intervening) [2011] UKSC 40, [2011] 1 WLR 1872 were people of that kind. The other kind are Self-Employed people who provide their services as part of a profession or business undertaking carried on by some-one else. The general medical practitioner in Hospital Medical Group Ltd V West Wood [2012] EWCA Civ, 1005;[2013] ICR 415 , who also provided his services as a hair restoration surgeon to a company offering hair restoration services to the public, was a person of that kind and thus a "worker" within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the 1996 Act."
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
■ Persuasive Commonwealth Labour Law on Mutual Obligation Provisions:
"The Appellant contends that there was no evidence before the EAT upon which it could conclude that any Implied Agreement had been reached between the appellant and the respondents to carry out inspection of meat and certification of same on the appellants behalf on an ongoing basis. Nothing in the arrangements that existed as between the parties, which had been reduced to writing, indicates that this was in fact the case. Moreover they say there was significant and uncontested evidence to the contrary before the EAT which it inexplicably chose to overlook. This was to the effect that the appellant had no control over the level of work that was available for TVI's as this was a matter entirely within the control of the processing plants, here Galtee. The appellant was thus unable to give, and did not give a commitment to the respondents at any stage as to the level of work available to them, and the respondents were at all times well aware of this."
"In the Courts view these points are well made. Moreover, the tribunals belief as to the nature of the contractual arrangements between the parties is wholly unclear. The determination speaks not of the implication of a term into a clearly identified contract (whether that contract be one of service or for services), but rather of an implied agreement which could either connote such a contract or, alternatively, an overarching Umbrella Contract."
"The case of O'kelly and Ors Vs. Trust House Forte Plc, [1983] I.C.R 728 provides an example of where the latter type of Contract was contended for. In that case the Banqueting Department of a hotel Company kept a list of some 100 casual catering staff who were known as regulars because they could be relied upon to offer their services regularly and in return were assured of preference in the allocation of available work. These workers claimed to be entitled to unfair dismissal compensation on the basis that they had been employed under a contract of service but the hotel disputed this and contended that they were Independent Contractors supplying Services and not Employees. The issue went before an Industrial Tribunal and the Claimants lost on the basis that the important ingredient of mutuality of obligation was missing."
"The Claimants appealed successfully to an Appeals Tribunal. The Appeals Tribunal decision was in turn appealed to the Court of Appeal. In the course of his judgment Sir Donaldson M.R. said: "Although I,like the Appeal Tribunal , and content to accept the Industrial Tribunals conclusion that there was no overall or Umbrella Contract, I think that there is a shorter answer. It is that giving the applicants evidence its fullest possible weight, all that could emerge was an Umbrella or Master Contract for , not of, employment. It would be a Contract to offer and accept Individual Contracts of Employment and, as such, outside the Scope of the Unfair dismissal provisions."
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
FILE PHOTO/COURTESY: Uganda Parliament Plenary Session
CHAUFFEUR / DRIVER EVALUATION & COMPENSATION
1. Tenor
This refers to the period that one has served the company. Under this criterion, one will be remunerated depending on the number of months/years he/she has served the company. Taking an example from the Platinum category, one who has served the company for four (4) years and above will attain a maximum score of four (4) points.
2. Class
This refers to the number of classes one has attained through out his driving experience. For instance, a chauffeur who is in possession of a Licence to drive a small Car, Van, Coach, Bus/Lorry will be awarded a maximum score of Eight (8) points.
3. Hardship
Hardship refers to the challenging situation one experiences while on the job. A Partner who will be allocated a task with a Very High level of Hardship will attain a maximum score of Sixteen (16) points. Such tasks with Very High level of Hardships can be witnessed in projects like Corporate Adhoc Staff Movements. The level of Hardship will have to be confirmed by the Project Supervisor.
4.Status
This refers to one's capacity to drive a particular class of people. These Clients are classified as:
■ VVIP: Very Very Important Person – which consists of guests/clients like the Presidents, Country Representatives/Ambassadors among other top notch guests/clients.
■ VIP: Very Important Person – This mainly consists of guests/clients like Cabinet Ministers and other Top Government and/or Private Sector C-Suite Officials.
■ Executive: This status categorizes mainly the Management Executives and/or Business class of people.
■ Private: This class is mainly for any other guest or client seeking to maintain a low profile and/or held in high esteem as a customer.
It is upon satisfying either of the qualities stated in the above four aspects that one will be classified under the various categories as given below:
These classifications include:
■ PLATINUM CATEGORY
■ GOLD CATEGORY
■SILVER CATEGORY
■BRONZE CATEGORY
The Aggregate points one has attained from each of the above four mentioned aspects will be used to determine the category under which one falls.
For example:
If one has served the company for more than four (4) years, he attains a maximum of four (4) points. One's Driving License has a class for a Small Car, Van and a Coach, he attains seven (7) points. One's level of Hardship at work is medium, he attains four (4) points. And if one has the capacity to drive a VIP, he will be awarded eleven (11) points. After these scores are summed up, they will give a total of 26 points. Basing on the classification Matrix below, one is able to prove that 26 points are classified under the BRONZE CATEGORY.
CLASSIFICATION MATRIX:
The classification matrices exhibited on the screenshot below gives an effortless comprehension of the grading/categorization procedures:
DEPLOYMENT & DYNAMIC EVALUATION:
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND THE CORRESPONDING SCORE, DEPLOYMENT AND DYNAMIC EVALUATION:
After the categorization of the Franchise Chauffeur Partners as illustrated above, each partner will be subjected to a Performance analysis that will at end of the month be used to determine the remuneration Pay Scale for the subject Chauffeur. This analysis will be carried out on a daily basis, however, a monthly Report will be produced by the Project Supervisors / Managers and provided to the relevant Contractor Payments Department. The Report will be required one week before the preparation of the Payment Schedule. This is aimed at enabling a prompt release of the Chauffeur Compensation/Remuneration.
A score for the corresponding Key Performance Indicator has been assigned as illustrated on the relevant matrix from the exhibit screenshot below:
Basing on the performance indicators above, a Daily analysis can potentially yield a maximum total of forty (40) points and a 30 Day month daily analysis will give a maximum total of 1,200 points.
For example if a chauffeur attains a total of 800 points in a month, his points will be divided by the maximum realizable Total for the subject month being 1,200 points to give a result of 0.7 points. This will be expressed as a percentage by multiplying by 100% to give a percentage of 70 points.
For instance, If a chauffeur falls under the BRONZE CATEGORY as illustrated in the relevant classification Matrix from the exhibit screenshot above and has attained a maximum percentage of 70 points in a month , then he will be entitled to a consideration /compensation amount of UGX.200,000/= for the subject month as illustrated in the table above; (excluding the commissions payable against the money worth volume of business generated for the subject month as per the Commission Share Attribute Matrix).
The whole process including the calculations will be automated and the party assigned to carry out this responsibility shall have to enter the correct data report into the template and the attendant consideration shall be generated automatically or the same shall be generated in real-time by recourse to Artificial Intelligence. The Professional Chauffeur Partner shall be paid on a monthly basis a variable rate as per the remuneration structure above or as shall be separately agreed from time to time or Uganda Shillings 150,000/= per month which ever is greater.
FLEET MANAGEMENT PARTNER COMPENSATION
The Partnering Fleet Service Provider Compensation is premised on the Historical Loss Ratio of the Insured as detailed in the relevant Matrix from the screenshot above. The insured enjoys discounts on a sliding scale that rewards improvement in the Loss Ratio applicable for the subsequent insurance period. Please Note that the Premium Surcharge is derived by applying the Factors given in the Matrix for the respective Loss Ratio and Fleet/Driver Count as declared by the Insured and mutually agreed by the Insurance Company and the Partnering Service Provider.
iSPECIAL ECOSYSTEM COMMISSION SHARE MATRICES
