As ever, a very focused and sector expert delivery by Melanie Stancliffe that asked fellows to vote at the recent IOC heads of industry round table.

Melanie focused her keynote on the singular case of Bolt, ten thousand drivers. Eight drivers chosen to represent. Melainie outlined the headlines and challenged the IOC fellows to percolate their thoughts before being asked for a vote on what worker status was engaged.

Bolt said drivers used the app, drivers were not exclusive, they could work for other apps.

Drivers could terminate at any time

Bolt said HMRC are treating the drivers as self-employed

Drivers said yes we use the app, but we each have to personally use the app.

Bolt changed the terms and conditions, but it is a  'take or leave', drivers don’t get to negotiate the terms.

Melanie set more context: Bolt charged the passenger and set the price, the drivers were invoicing, but it was Bolt who prepared the invoice, weekly pay -outs, jobs could be paid early, drivers could underbid the app to get the job. The legal test from the seventies was concert firm - mutuality of obligation. The focus on the Bolt case was around control. Bolt did ID checks, Bolt could refuse a passenger, Bolt set minimum service levels, Bolt controlled the geographic territory for the driver.

Melanie then outlined the arguments, Bolt said they were not a transport business (similar to Uber answer). Did drivers have communication with passengers or the app? Freedom to accept or reject a job does not mitigate against control.

Melanie Stancliffe faced up the fellows - Were they workers?

The IOC fellows voted almost unanimously - Yes, they were workers.

Melanie explained the further result related to minimum wage, it was considered the drivers waiting between app bookings were working and due hourly pay, that must equate to and above minimum wage.