Transport & Logistics Sector Compliance Focus
Driver Reclassification, Fleet Contractors & Vehicle Ownership Issues
APEX AV LLC
Ukrainian Labor Law Compliance Services
Stefan Lilienkamp | Managing Partner
Universitetskaya str. 33, office 52, Cherkasy, Ukraine
📱 +380 50 46 01 037 | 📧 stefan@claruskiev.com
🌐 claruskiev.com | ukrpayroll.com
The Transport & Logistics Crisis
- Driver Reclassification Risk: FOP drivers will be presumed employees (8/8 criteria match typical)
- Owner-Operator Complexity: Vehicle-owning drivers in grey zone (may be employees despite ownership)
- Fleet Contractor Exposure: Companies renting drivers/vehicles face employer liability
- Route Optimization Paradox: Advanced dispatch systems trigger "subordination" criteria
- International Transit Risk: Border crossing drivers face unique classification issues
Transportation is uniquely vulnerable to the Draft Code because the nature of modern fleet management (GPS tracking, route optimization, schedule control) creates textbook employment criteria relationships, regardless of whether drivers own their vehicles.
Why Transport Is at Extreme High Risk
The Employment Criteria Mismatch
Modern transport operations inherently trigger employment classification criteria:
| Transport Reality | Employment Criteria It Triggers | Why It's Problematic |
|---|---|---|
| Dispatch system assigns routes/deliveries | Company controls schedule (Criterion 6) | Driver must follow assigned route/delivery order |
| GPS tracking during work | Subordination to management (Criterion 2) | Real-time location monitoring = supervision |
| Company-branded vehicles | Company provides tools/equipment (Criterion 4) | Company owns/controls vehicle (even if driver pays fuel) |
| Fixed daily/weekly routes | Non-discretionary work (Criterion 3) | Driver cannot refuse assigned deliveries |
| Driver works for company exclusively | Exclusive engagement (Criterion 7) | No ability to take other clients during working hours |
| Monthly payment/salary structure | Regular income stream (Criterion 8) | Payment looks like employment, not project-based |
| Driver integrated into operations | Integrated into company structure (Criterion 1) | Driver is core to logistics chain |
| Management oversight of performance | Subordination to management (Criterion 2) | Quality checks, delivery verification, performance reviews |
Result: Typical transport FOP driver arrangements score 8/8 criteria - essentially a guaranteed reclassification if audited.
Three Risk Categories in Transport
Risk Category 1: FOP Drivers (Company Vehicles) - CRITICAL RISK
Typical Arrangement: FOP drivers in company-owned/branded vehicles, assigned routes, monthly stipends.
| Criterion | Typical Transport Setup | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated into company structure | ✓ Core logistics operations | YES |
| Subordination to management | ✓ Dispatch assigns routes/deliveries | YES |
| Non-discretionary work | ✓ Must complete assigned deliveries | YES |
| Company provides tools/equipment | ✓ Company vehicle, fuel, insurance provided | YES |
| Works on company premises (logistics hub) | ✓ Reports to/from warehouse | YES |
| Company controls schedule | ✓ Fixed daily routes, shift times | YES |
| Exclusive engagement | ✓ Usually no side deliveries | YES |
| Regular income stream | ✓ Monthly salary/stipend | YES |
| TOTAL | 8/8 criteria met | CRITICAL |
Financial Exposure Example:
- 20 FOP drivers @ UAH 50K/month = UAH 1M monthly
- Annual salary exposure: UAH 12M
- Missing employer tax (22%): UAH 2.64M
- Missing employee tax (18%): UAH 2.16M
- Penalties (20%): UAH 924K
- Total annual exposure: UAH 5.724M
- For 2-year audit period: UAH 11.448M
Risk Category 2: Owner-Operator Drivers (Vehicle-Owning) - HIGH RISK
Typical Arrangement: FOP drivers own their own vehicles but work exclusively for company via dispatch system, receiving monthly payments.
| Criterion | Owner-Operator Setup | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated into company structure | ✓ Part of dispatch/logistics network | YES |
| Subordination to management | ✓ Dispatch system controls routes | YES |
| Non-discretionary work | ✓ Must accept assigned routes | YES |
| Company provides tools/equipment | ? Driver owns vehicle but company controls usage | PARTIAL |
| Works on company premises | ? May report to hub, or work remotely | SOMETIMES |
| Company controls schedule | ✓ Work hours determined by dispatch | YES |
| Exclusive engagement | ✓ Often exclusive to one logistics company | YES |
| Regular income stream | ✓ Monthly guarantee or per-mile payments | YES |
| TOTAL | 6-7 criteria met | HIGH |
Why Vehicle Ownership Doesn't Help: Courts and tax authorities look at substance, not form. If a driver must accept all assigned routes, report to your hub, work exclusive hours for you, and receive monthly payment, they're an employee—regardless of who owns the vehicle.
Risk Category 3: International/Border Crossing Drivers - MEDIUM-HIGH RISK
Typical Arrangement: FOP drivers cross EU borders for international deliveries, often working 24+ hour shifts, paid per trip.
| Criterion | International Driver Setup | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated into company structure | ✓ International logistics division | YES |
| Subordination to management | ✓ Route planning, delivery coordination | YES |
| Non-discretionary work | ✓ Cannot refuse assigned international routes | YES |
| Company provides tools/equipment | ✓ Vehicle, fuel, border docs, insurance | YES |
| Works on company premises | ? Operates internationally, reports to hub | YES |
| Company controls schedule | ✓ Delivery windows, rest periods managed | YES |
| Exclusive engagement | ? May have flexibility, but usually exclusive | USUALLY |
| Regular income stream | ✓ Per-trip or monthly retainer | YES |
| TOTAL | 7-8 criteria met | HIGH/CRITICAL |
Additional Complexity: International drivers may trigger EU employment protections (especially if substantial EU operations). Ukrainian authorities may coordinate audits with EU partners, increasing scrutiny.
GPS Tracking & Digital Dispatch: A Hidden Trigger
Real-time location monitoring = real-time supervision = employment relationship
Audit Probability for Transport Sector
Why Transport Will Be Heavily Audited:
- Large financial exposure per driver (UAH 500K - 1M+ per audit year)
- Clear paper trail (dispatch records, payment records, GPS logs)
- Textbook criteria violations (easier for auditors to prove)
- Many operators, high concentration of misclassifications
- International visibility (foreign logistics companies also targeted)
| Timeline Phase | Event | Transport Impact | Audit Probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q2-Q3 2026 | Draft Labor Code passed/enacted | Enforcement begins; immediate audit risk | LOW initially (setup period) |
| Q3-Q4 2026 | Tax authority audits begin in earnest | Large logistics companies targeted first (visible, large exposure) | HIGH (50-60% for major operators) |
| 2027 Onwards | Audit enforcement normalizes | All transport companies at permanent elevated audit risk | ONGOING (standard +50-80% for transport) |
Compliance Options for Transport Sector
OPTION 1: Convert FOP Drivers to Employment
What: Convert all FOP drivers to full-time or part-time employees on payroll.
Implementation:
- Execute employment contracts with all drivers
- Add to payroll system and tax registration
- Process monthly payroll with withholding
- Provide standard employee benefits (health insurance, vacation, social insurance)
Pros:
- ✓ Eliminates audit risk 100%
- ✓ Simplest legal position
- ✓ May improve driver stability and retention
- ✓ Workers prefer employment status
Cons:
- ✗ Significant cost increase: +22% employer tax on all drivers
- ✗ For 20 drivers @ 50K/month: +UAH 220K/month (+UAH 2.64M/year)
- ✗ Higher operational friction (cannot quickly adjust headcount)
- ✗ Employment termination procedures more formal
Cost Example:
- 20 drivers × UAH 50K/month = UAH 1M current cost
- Add employer tax (22%): +UAH 220K/month
- New monthly cost: UAH 1.22M (+22%)
- Annual cost increase: UAH 2.64M
OPTION 2: Restructure for True Contractor Independence
What: Fundamentally restructure driver relationships to emphasize independence (project/route-based, flexible, multiple clients).
Implementation Requirements (Difficult):
- ✓ Route-based or delivery-based billing (not monthly salary)
- ✓ Remove dispatch control: drivers choose which routes/deliveries to accept
- ✓ Enable multi-client work: drivers work for competing logistics companies simultaneously
- ✓ Remove GPS tracking during work (or inform driver it's optional)
- ✓ No performance reviews or supervision
- ✓ Flexible hours: drivers work when they want
- ✓ Drivers own/maintain own vehicles
Pros:
- ✓ Maintains current cost structure (or reduces cost)
- ✓ Preserves operational flexibility
Cons:
- ✗ Requires fundamental operational restructuring
- ✗ Still audit risk if implementation is incomplete
- ✗ Severely impacts service quality (drivers can refuse routes)
- ✗ Likely driver dissatisfaction and turnover
- ✗ Difficult to enforce (drivers still depend on your volume)
- ✗ Auditors will scrutinize actual practice vs. contract language
⚠️ WARNING: This approach works only if implemented genuinely. If auditors examine your dispatch logs and see drivers accepting every assigned route, this "restructuring" will fail scrutiny.
OPTION 3: Hybrid Model (Recommended for Large Operators)
What: Create multi-tier driver model: core drivers as employees, flexible contractors for peak demand.
Implementation:
- Tier 1 (Core Employees): 10-12 permanent drivers → employment contracts
- Tier 2 (Flexible Contractors): 8-10 route-specific contractors → per-route payments, genuine flexibility
- Tier 3 (Agency Drivers): Peak demand fulfilled through staffing agencies
Cost Impact:
- Core employees (12 × 50K × 1.22): UAH 732K/month
- Flexible contractors (8 × 35K reduced): UAH 280K/month
- Agency drivers (peak): UAH 100K/month average
- Total: UAH 1.112M vs. current UAH 1M = +11% cost increase
When to Choose: Best for mid-to-large transport operators with mixed driver needs (permanent routes + seasonal/peak demand).
OPTION 4: Joint Venture / Franchising Model
What: Convert independent drivers to sub-contractors who operate their own dispatch, accept their own clients, use your brand/logistics network.
Structure:
- Driver becomes independent operator, not your employee
- Driver pays you franchise/network fee or profit split
- Driver uses your logistics platform (optional, but encouraged)
- Driver owns vehicle, controls operations, accepts which loads to take
Pros:
- ✓ Eliminates employment relationship entirely
- ✓ Aligns incentives (driver makes more by working more)
- ✓ Maintains brand presence (drivers still associated with your company)
Cons:
- ✗ Most complex legally and operationally
- ✗ Requires significant restructuring
- ✗ Risk: drivers may compete with you directly
- ✗ Still audit risk if implementation incomplete
When to Choose: Only for large, sophisticated operators willing to fundamentally restructure business model.
Scenario: Mid-Sized Transport Company (20 Drivers)
Current FOP Setup (CRITICAL RISK)
- 20 FOP drivers @ UAH 50K/month = UAH 1M monthly cost
- Dispatch system: GPS tracking, route assignment, performance monitoring
- 12 company-owned vehicles, 8 driver-owned vehicles
- Operating for 2 years with current FOP arrangement
Exposure Calculation
- Monthly salary exposure: UAH 1M per month
- Annual exposure: UAH 12M
- Missing employer tax (22%): UAH 2.64M
- Missing employee tax (18%): UAH 2.16M
- Penalties (20%): UAH 924K
- Annual exposure: UAH 5.724M
- 2-year audit period exposure: UAH 11.448M
Option 1: Full Employment Conversion
- Convert all 20 drivers to employment
- Cost increase: +22% = +UAH 220K/month = +UAH 2.64M/year
- Payback period: ~4.3 years
- Audit risk: Eliminated
- Operational impact: Moderate (less flexibility on headcount)
Option 3: Hybrid (RECOMMENDED)
- Convert 12 core drivers to employment (permanent routes)
- Restructure 8 flexible drivers as per-route contractors
- New cost structure:
- 12 employees @ 50K + 22% = UAH 732K/month
- 8 contractors @ 35K per-route (reduced): UAH 280K/month
- Total: UAH 1.012M (+1.2% cost)
- Payback period: Immediate (cost roughly neutral)
- Audit risk: Very low (core protected, flexible tier genuinely independent)
- Operational impact: Low (core permanent, flexible remains flexible)
Decision Logic
IF you need workforce flexibility and can afford modest cost increase → CHOOSE HYBRID (Option 3)
IF you have stable workforce and want maximum compliance certainty → CHOOSE EMPLOYMENT (Option 1)
IF you want to restructure operations entirely → CHOOSE FRANCHISING (Option 4)
Timeline for Transport Compliance
Immediately (Now - February 2026): Assessment & Planning
- Audit all FOP drivers against 8-criteria test
- Calculate financial exposure
- Analyze dispatch system: identify "subordination" triggers
- Decide compliance approach: employment, restructure, or hybrid
- Engage Ukrainian labor counsel
February - March 2026: Implementation Planning
- Prepare employment contracts (if choosing employment/hybrid)
- Update dispatch system policies (if restructuring for independence)
- Brief management on classification requirements
- Coordinate with finance/payroll teams
- Prepare driver communications
April - May 2026: Implementation Begins
- Roll out new driver classification model
- Execute employment contracts or restructured contractor agreements
- Update payroll system and tax registration
- Begin processing new payroll structure
- Monitor compliance and document decisions
June 2026+: Ongoing Compliance & Preparation for Audits
- Maintain detailed records of driver classification decisions
- Document dispatch system changes (if applicable)
- Track GPS/tracking policy changes
- Be prepared for tax authority audits (high probability Q3-Q4 2026)
Transport Sector Profiles
Profile 1: Small Local Logistics (5-10 drivers)
Typical Setup: Single warehouse, local city delivery routes, mostly company-owned vehicles
Contractor Risk: CRITICAL (8/8 criteria typical)
Recommended Approach: Full employment conversion (simpler for small teams)
Cost Impact: +22% of driver costs
Timeline: 4-6 weeks
Profile 2: Mid-Sized Regional Operator (15-30 drivers)
Typical Setup: Multiple regional hubs, mix of local and regional routes, mixed vehicle ownership
Contractor Risk: CRITICAL (8/8 criteria for most drivers)
Recommended Approach: Hybrid model (core employment + flexible contractors)
Cost Impact: +5-15% of driver costs
Timeline: 6-8 weeks
Profile 3: Large National Operator (50+ drivers)
Typical Setup: National network, multiple distribution centers, international routes, sophisticated dispatch
Contractor Risk: CRITICAL (8/8 criteria for all drivers)
Recommended Approach: Hybrid or franchising model (allows scale, flexibility)
Cost Impact: +10-20% depending on model
Timeline: 8-12 weeks
Profile 4: Specialized/Courier Services
Typical Setup: Express delivery, time-critical shipments, flexible routing, intensive GPS tracking
Contractor Risk: CRITICAL (GPS tracking triggers subordination, route assignment triggers control)
Recommended Approach: Full employment or hybrid (restructuring too operationally complex)
Cost Impact: +22% of driver costs
Timeline: 4-6 weeks
Digital Dispatch Systems & Compliance
- Remove mandatory route assignment features
- Allow drivers to decline routes without penalty
- Eliminate performance monitoring/driver ratings
- Remove GPS real-time tracking (or make it optional)
- Enable multi-client visibility (show drivers can work for competitors)
If your dispatch system looks like an employment management tool, auditors will find evidence of subordination.
Documentation & Audit Defense
For transport compliance, maintain detailed records of:
Document 8-criteria assessment for each driver
How routes are assigned (mandatory vs. optional)
When tracking is used and for what purposes
Clear distinction: employment vs. FOP contractor payments
Whether reviews are conducted (employment signal)
Vehicle registration (company vs. driver-owned)
Personal Liability for Transport Operators
- Systematic driver misclassification (tax evasion)
- Driving hour violations (misclassified drivers may exceed legal hours)
- Vehicle safety violations (reduced oversight of FOP drivers)
- Intentional non-compliance after code enforcement begins
This is not just business penalties—personal criminal charges are possible, especially for large operators with systemic misclassification.
Key Success Factors for Transport Compliance
- Early Action: Decide approach immediately (before Q2 2026 code passage)
- Dispatch System Alignment: Ensure dispatch policies match chosen classification (employee vs. contractor)
- Consistent Application: Apply same criteria to all drivers (auditors expect uniformity)
- Record Documentation: Maintain detailed records of classification decisions and implementation
- Legal Review: Engage Ukrainian labor counsel for employment contracts or restructuring agreements
- Driver Communication: Be transparent about changes (reduces disputes, improves retention)
- System Testing: For restructuring models, test actual operations before full rollout
- Flexibility: Be prepared to adjust as Draft Code final language emerges
📱 +380 50 46 01 037 | 📧 stefan@claruskiev.com
English 
German 
Ukrainian 
Russian