For those who can read Portuguese: Sentença.
It's pretty good.
The judge says that according to Brazilian Labor Law (CLT), employee is "any natural person who provides services on a regular basis to an employer, under his or her dependence and on a salary basis", so the elements to recognize the employment relationship are: natural person (i.e. not a company - legal person), personal relation, regular nature of the relationship, onerosity (I've never seen this word in English, in this context means that there is payment for something) and subordination.
1. The driver is a natural person.
2. On the personal relation the main points the judge makes are: 1. That Uber requires previous registering from the drivers. The drivers have to send several documents, not have criminal antecedents, etc and, at the time, the driver had to pass an interview to be approved by Uber. 2. That the driver cannot give his account to another person in any way (rent, cede). He can only share his car with other uber approved drivers. In this point Uber defense was that the users cannot chose the driver, so it was not a personal relationship. The judge dismisses this argument by pointing out that the personal relation in question is not between the driver and the user, but between uber and the driver, just like the user doesn't choose the cook in a restaurant, but the restaurant chooses the cooks that will work for it.
3. On onerosity, the defense argues that the driver is paying uber, and not the opposite. So it is Uber that is providing a service to the driver and being paid. The judge dismisses this argument by pointing out that it is untrue. The facts he pointed are: there are several promotions where the user doesn't pay for the ride, but Uber still pays the driver; There are "promotions" where Uber pays the driver to be available, even if there are not enough rides; and the most important that the users pay Uber, Uber receives the payment, removes it's percentage e retain the rest, passing them along to the drivers at the end of the week. That shows that Uber not only mediates the businesses between driver and passenger but the opposite, receives for every service realized and later pays the worker.
4. On the regularity of the services, the judge points that it is a complicated matter, points some theories and ends up with pointing out that: 1. this driver was working regularly; 2. that if drivers are not available for long periods of time they are excluded from the platform; 3. that one of the drivers received an email threatening being excluded from the platform if he didn't make any rides in the following week. With this he points out that the defendant demands frequency from the drivers. Then he points that the non-eventuality of the relationship was even more evident by the theory of the ends of an enterprise. He questions what are the ends of the defendant? Is it a technology company that only makes the interface between people or a modern passengers transportation company? Then he gets the definition of a transportation service... It goes on for a while, it's late here...
5. On subordination he says it's the most important in the employment relationship. He says it is the most complex to identify. So its very long and I'm sorry. He talks about how the drivers cannot chose prices, cannot refuse rides, cannot hand out personal cards (I didn't know that), etc. Then he talks about how the control over the employees occurs in a different way nowadays, fact that was included in Brazilian law in 2011 (electronic means of control and supervision are equivalent to personal control and supervision he quotes from the law). He points that the control is diluted between the users and the algorithm, and that drivers are punished for being under 4.7 stars, or automatically terminated if under 4.4 stars or committing severe infractions (like handing personal cards).
With this he decided that there is an employment relationship, it's probably going to be appealed.