[UK] Deliveroo riders are not workers under Human Rights law

In the UK, the Supreme Court has found that Deliveroo riders are not workers under Human Rights law. Its decision upholds those of the CAC and Court of Appeal. Mondaq summarises the key facts of the case.

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the latest case featuring a household-name app. On this occasion, Deliveroo. The judgement features consideration of what a 'worker' is for the purposes of Article 11 (Freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In 2016 the IWU reportedly made a formal request to Deliveroo to recognise it for collective bargaining purposes in respect of riders in an area of London. Deliveroo rejected the request and the IWU subsequently made an application to the CAC which has powers to order an employer to recognise a union and to engage in collective bargaining if certain conditions are met.

Central to the matter before the CAC was whether the riders met the definition of 'worker' under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA). According to Mondaq, Deliveroo argued that the riders did not, and the CAC agreed. As an alternative argument, the IWU argued that denying the rights of the riders under TULRCA in this matter was contrary to Article 11 (1) ECHR because the riders were 'workers' for the purposes of that article.

Article 11 ECHR provides as follows:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society [...]

The IWU reportedly argued that the riders were afforded the right to form a union without restriction per Article 11. As a result, the IWU brought a judicial review of the CAC's decision and was only allowed to proceed on the Article 11 ECHR point. However, the High Court and Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed the IWU's case.

In regards to Article 11 ECHR, the Supreme Court considered the leading case of the European Court of Human Rights (CHR) known as 'The Good Shepherd' which considered the rights of orthodox priests and lay staff to form a trade union. In that case, the CHR concluded that the right to form a trade union could only arise where there was an employment relationship.

Specifically, the CHR applied the criteria laid down in relevant international instruments including the International Labour Organization (ILO) Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006 (No 198), which sets out guidance designed to help identify an employment relationship.

On review, the Supreme Court highlighted that the CAC noted the following key points in the Deliveroo-rider contract and relationship which were relevant to the ILO No 198 guidance:

• There was no direction by Deliveroo as to when the riders performed their work, how often they did it, for how long or where, provided it was within a certain geographical area
• The riders were expected to provide all of their equipment from their own mobile phone and bike to suitable transport containers to perform jobs
• There was a practically unfettered right of substitution under the contract for the rider to allow another person to log in to the app using their access codes and perform deliveries
• Deliveroo did not police the use of substitutes and instead relied on its contractual position with the rider to seek recourse for poor or non-service
• Deliveroo did not prevent the riders from working for others and indeed did not prevent riders from working for competitors

• The riders were not obliged to take jobs offered by Deliveroo when logged into the app and Deliveroo was not obliged to offer jobs to the riders

The Supreme Court noted that the focus for the CAC and lower courts had fallen on the right of substitution and agreed that this was especially crucial in determining whether there was an employment relationship for the purposes of Article 11 ECHR. In this case, the Supreme Court considered that the CAC was entitled on the facts to find that there was no employment or worker relationship between Deliveroo and the riders for the reasons highlighted above.

The case details can be seen here: Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and another [2023]

Source: Mondaq

(Link via original reporting)

In the UK, the Supreme Court has found that Deliveroo riders are not workers under Human Rights law. Its decision upholds those of the CAC and Court of Appeal. Mondaq summarises the key facts of the case.

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the latest case featuring a household-name app. On this occasion, Deliveroo. The judgement features consideration of what a 'worker' is for the purposes of Article 11 (Freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In 2016 the IWU reportedly made a formal request to Deliveroo to recognise it for collective bargaining purposes in respect of riders in an area of London. Deliveroo rejected the request and the IWU subsequently made an application to the CAC which has powers to order an employer to recognise a union and to engage in collective bargaining if certain conditions are met.

Central to the matter before the CAC was whether the riders met the definition of 'worker' under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA). According to Mondaq, Deliveroo argued that the riders did not, and the CAC agreed. As an alternative argument, the IWU argued that denying the rights of the riders under TULRCA in this matter was contrary to Article 11 (1) ECHR because the riders were 'workers' for the purposes of that article.

Article 11 ECHR provides as follows:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society [...]

The IWU reportedly argued that the riders were afforded the right to form a union without restriction per Article 11. As a result, the IWU brought a judicial review of the CAC's decision and was only allowed to proceed on the Article 11 ECHR point. However, the High Court and Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed the IWU's case.

In regards to Article 11 ECHR, the Supreme Court considered the leading case of the European Court of Human Rights (CHR) known as 'The Good Shepherd' which considered the rights of orthodox priests and lay staff to form a trade union. In that case, the CHR concluded that the right to form a trade union could only arise where there was an employment relationship.

Specifically, the CHR applied the criteria laid down in relevant international instruments including the International Labour Organization (ILO) Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006 (No 198), which sets out guidance designed to help identify an employment relationship.

On review, the Supreme Court highlighted that the CAC noted the following key points in the Deliveroo-rider contract and relationship which were relevant to the ILO No 198 guidance:

• There was no direction by Deliveroo as to when the riders performed their work, how often they did it, for how long or where, provided it was within a certain geographical area
• The riders were expected to provide all of their equipment from their own mobile phone and bike to suitable transport containers to perform jobs
• There was a practically unfettered right of substitution under the contract for the rider to allow another person to log in to the app using their access codes and perform deliveries
• Deliveroo did not police the use of substitutes and instead relied on its contractual position with the rider to seek recourse for poor or non-service
• Deliveroo did not prevent the riders from working for others and indeed did not prevent riders from working for competitors

• The riders were not obliged to take jobs offered by Deliveroo when logged into the app and Deliveroo was not obliged to offer jobs to the riders

The Supreme Court noted that the focus for the CAC and lower courts had fallen on the right of substitution and agreed that this was especially crucial in determining whether there was an employment relationship for the purposes of Article 11 ECHR. In this case, the Supreme Court considered that the CAC was entitled on the facts to find that there was no employment or worker relationship between Deliveroo and the riders for the reasons highlighted above.

The case details can be seen here: Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and another [2023]

Source: Mondaq

(Link via original reporting)