The long-running case of Ready-Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd/Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] outlined the key factors to be considered in assessing employment status as follows: Uber`s argument and argument in the case where drivers run their own business, keep their own accounts and declare their own taxes. As a result, Uber asserted that they were third-party contractors and that, as a result, drivers had no working relationship or rights against them, either under the Employment Rights Act of 1996, the National Minimum Wage Act of 1998 or the organization of working time in 1998. This means that drivers are not entitled to paid annual leave or the national minimum wage, since they are, as Uber said, contractors and not workers. There is no definition of autonomy in labour law, which does not help to clarify the situation. However, it is generally accepted that a self-employed person is a person who has no employment contract or contract for personal activity. However, the terms of the relationship between Uber and its drivers were questioned and highlighted earlier this month when it was reviewed by the London Central Employment Tribunal. This was an extremely important case, as it was the first time that labour rights were considered under the „Gig Economy“ (an environment where fixed-term positions are common and organizations with self-employed workers contract for short-term commitments) were considered. Moreover, to justify the classification of Uber`s plans in employment contracts, the decision of the Social Chamber does not deliberately respect the commercial rules which provide that the client has the power of control and even sanction. In this case, Uber`s control and sanction function is inherently limited to the proper performance of the commercial service and cannot constitute a situation of permanent legal subordination.