The UK court has recently considered that an Uber driver is a worker of Uber under UK employment law. In this post, we will consider if similar conclusion could be reached under Vietnamese law using the UK court’s reasoning. Under Labour Code 2019, an employee means a person working for an employer pursuant to an agreement, such person is paid wages and he/she is subjected to management and supervision by the employer. Based on the definition of employee under the Labour Code 2019, it is more likely than not a Uber driver or, since Uber has left Vietnam, a similar “gig” driver could argue that he/she is an employee of the platform owner instead of a third party contractor using the arguments raised by UK court.

The table below provides a more detailed analysis:

In Vietnam, some platform owners sign a “co-operation contract” (Hợp đồng hợp tác) with its drivers to regulate the terms of the parties’ relationship. However, a quick review of a sample co-operation contract indicates that the terms of the co-operation contract are not consistent with the requirements of the Civil Code 2015 on co-operation contracts. For example, the Civil Code 2015 provides that the parties to the co-operation contracts will jointly bear liabilities. However, in providing services to the customers, all the risks are borne by the gig driver not the platform owner. The Civil Code 2015 also provides that parties to a co-operation contract will participate in making decision. Again, in providing services to customers, the platform owner (not the driver) makes all the decisions.

This post is written by Nguyen Quang Vu with input by Trinh Phuong Thao, Tran Kim Chi, Nguyen Thuc Anh, and Le Vo Thuy Tien.