abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Esta página não está disponível em Português e está sendo exibida em English

Artigo

14 Abr 2021

Author:
Sarah Butler, The Guardian

The Netherlands: Dutch court orders Uber to reinstate drivers wrongly accused of fraudulent activity by automated process

"Court tells Uber to reinstate five UK drivers sacked by automated process", 14 April, 2021

... The five drivers, backed by the App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU) and the campaign group Worker Info Exchange, argued that they had been wrongly accused of fraudulent activity based on mistaken information from Uber’s technology, and that the company had failed to provide the drivers with proper evidence to support the allegations.

In a judgment published on Wednesday, the district court of Amsterdam – where Uber’s European headquarters is located – said the ride-hailing app should reinstate the five British drivers, and one Dutch driver, because the decisions had been “based solely on automated processing, including profiling”. The judgment was made by default, as Uber did not attend the hearing; the company said it had been unaware of the legal action until last week.

The court said Uber should pay a penalty of €5,000 (£4,300) for each day that it had failed to comply with the order to reinstate the drivers, which was made in February, up to a maximum of €50,000, as well as €100,474 in damages.

... Uber said it was applying to have the judgment of the Amsterdam court set aside as it had not been aware of the case until last week and that correct procedure had not been followed.

An Uber spokesperson said: “Uber only became aware of this default judgment last week, due to representatives for the ADCU not following proper legal procedure. With no knowledge of the case, the court handed down a default judgment in our absence, which was automatic and not considered.”