Tada Driver Appeals Ruling Denying Recognition of 'Worker Status'

On the 5th, as the implementation of the amendment to the Passenger Transport Service Act, known as the Tada Ban Act, approaches, a 'Tada' vehicle is parked at a garage in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] Drivers of the vehicle call service Tada have appealed against the first-instance ruling that did not recognize their status as workers.

According to the legal community on the 1st, the representative of Tada driver A submitted an appeal to the Administrative Division 3 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Yoo Hwanwoo).

Earlier, this court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the 8th of last month in the first instance of an administrative lawsuit filed by the vehicle-sharing company Socar, requesting the cancellation of the decision recognizing unfair dismissal against the Central Labor Commission. Socar was found not to be the employer of the Tada drivers.

At that time, the court stated, "It is difficult to consider the plaintiff as having the status of an employer," and "partner companies independently hired drivers without the plaintiff's instructions or supervision." It added, "(The drivers) moved the vehicle to the boarding point according to the orders of Tada service users and then drove the vehicle to the drop-off point," and "the work content cannot be seen as unilaterally decided by the plaintiff."

Furthermore, "The specific work details of the drivers, such as departure points, destinations, and waypoints, were determined by the user's call," and "the drivers had the authority to decide whether to accept the dispatch," it added.

Tada is a service that calls an 11-passenger van with a driver via a smartphone application. It was operated by VCNC, a subsidiary of Socar and the operator of Tada, which rented cars from Socar and then rented them out again to customers along with drivers.

A and others signed freelance contracts with VCNC in 2019 and operated Tada Basic vehicles, but were excluded from operation after being notified by VCNC that "personnel reduction is inevitable."

After losing his job, A claimed that he was effectively a worker and filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Socar, dissatisfied with the Central Labor Commission's recognition of Socar as the employer and the judgment that the contract termination was unfair dismissal as claimed by A, filed an administrative lawsuit in July 2020.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.