Workers’ rights victory for BCA drivers

Hundreds of former and current British Car Auctions (BCA) drivers look set to be compensated after securing a major victory in their long-running fight for workers’ rights.

It comes after the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed a challenge by BCA to their case. 

BCA had attempted to overturn a 2023 ruling, which confirmed drivers as workers, by arguing that there were errors in law in that ruling.

In that original ruling, law firm Leigh Day successfully argued on behalf of around 1,000 current and former drivers that BCA had misclassified its driver workforce as self-employed independent contractors, denying them basic legal rights such as holiday pay and the national minimum wage. 

The Employment Tribunal’s found in favour of the drivers, ruling that BCA exercised significant control over their work and that the written contracts did not reflect the reality of the working relationship.  

The Tribunal concluded that the drivers were not operating as independent businesses but rather were an integral part of BCA’s operations. 

BCA, which is owned by Constellation Automotive Group, attempted to appeal the ruling on the grounds that the Tribunal had improperly failed to take into account evidence they had advanced of substitution. Having a genuine substitution right would allow a contractor to delegate the work to a third party, rather than personally performing it. 

It also argued that the Tribunal had unfairly criticised BCA’s failure to call any current or recent drivers as witnesses, and that this had affected their view of the substitution evidence as a whole.  

Both arguments were rejected by the EAT in a judgment handed down Friday (July 4). 

The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the substitution clause in BCA’s contracts was not genuine in practice.

It noted that while substitution was a theoretical contractual right, there was no evidence that it had ever been exercised by any driver in over 25 years.

The EAT found there was “an abundance of other evidence” supporting the Tribunal’s conclusion that the drivers did not operate with genuine substitution rights.

It rejected BCA’s contention that the Tribunal had unfairly discounted their substitution evidence, concluding instead that the Tribunal was entitled to find that BCA’s drivers were not, in reality, expecting or permitted to use substitutes. 

The EAT also dismissed BCA’s argument that the Tribunal had erred by referencing the company’s failure to call driver witnesses.

The judge found that the Tribunal’s observation was merely “a passing comment” and had no bearing on the outcome.

The EAT judge noted that the Tribunal’s conclusions were based on the totality of the evidence, including a rejection of BCA’s key witness testimony.

The EAT made clear that the Tribunal had given “detailed reasons” for its conclusions and had not committed any legal error in its treatment of BCA’s evidence or witnesses.  

In his final remarks, the EAT judge described the Tribunal's judgment as “impressive”, with findings that were not only rational but “more or less inevitable”. 

Lawyers say this latest ruling reinforces a growing body of legal precedent clarifying that gig economy workers cannot be denied basic rights simply through contractual labels or notional clauses that do not reflect real-world practice. 

The EAT's ruling, says Leigh Day, means that BCA will need to provide compensation for holiday pay and for shortfalls in the minimum wage to affected BCA claimants.

Further hearings will be held to decide how much compensation the affected BCA claimants are entitled to. 

BCA drivers are represented by Michael Newman and Gabriel Morrison, employment solicitors at law firm Leigh Day. 

Morrison, senior associate solicitor at Leigh Day, said: “The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed what the Employment Tribunal had already made crystal clear - BCA’s drivers are workers, and they are entitled to holiday pay and the national minimum wage. 

“BCA’s attempt to undermine the Tribunal’s findings was firmly rejected. This is an important result, not just for our clients but for anyone working in conditions where control and obligation are dressed up as self-employment.

“It’s time for BCA to stop resisting the inevitable and start treating their drivers fairly.” 

BCA has been contacted for comment.