Labor Court fines Uber R$1 billion and orders company to register drivers

The Labor Court decided that Uber must register all its active drivers, as well as those who work on the platform from now on. The sentence was handed down in a public civil action filed by the Public Ministry of Labor in São Paulo (MPT-SP), in 2021. The digital platform was also ordered to pay R$1 billion for collective moral damages.

The decision, from the 4th Labor Court of São Paulo, signed by judge Mauricio Pereira Simões, has national coverage. “I condemn the defendant [Uber] the obligation to comply with the legislation applicable to contracts signed with its drivers, and must carry out records in digital CTPS as employees of all active drivers, as well as those who may be hired following the decision, under penalty of a daily fine of R$10,000.00 for each unregistered driver”, says the text of the decision.

Uber may appeal the decision, the company said. Brazil Agency. According to the ruling, the digital platform must register drivers within six months after the action becomes final, that is, after all appeals have been judged. In the action, MPT-SP stated that it had access to Uber data that would demonstrate the company’s control over the way in which professionals’ activities should be carried out, which would constitute an employment relationship.

In a statement, Uber said it will appeal the decision. “Uber clarifies that it will appeal the decision made by the 4th Labor Court of São Paulo and will not adopt any of the measures listed in the sentence before all applicable resources are exhausted”, says the statement. The company also stated that the decision causes “obvious legal uncertainty”.

“The decision represents an isolated understanding and contrary to the jurisprudence that has been established by the second instance of the São Paulo Regional Court itself in trials carried out since 2017, in addition to other Regional Courts and the Superior Labor Court”, says the note. Uber highlighted that it is convinced that the sentence did not adequately consider the “robust set of evidence produced in the process” and that the decision was based on doctrinal positions “already overcome, including by the Federal Supreme Court”.