Deliveroo riders’ lose latest challenge to their employment status

Basic worker rights not ‘delivered’ in latest development in the Deliveroo gig economy case

The latest challenge to the self-employed status of Deliveroo riders has failed following the High Court’s dismissal of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain’s (IWGB) judicial review claim.

The IWGB, a trade union, sought to challenge the previous ruling of the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) which found last November that Deliveroo riders are not workers for the purposes of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A) and therefore cannot benefit from the collective bargaining arrangements provided for under that legislation.

Deliveroo is an app-based takeaway delivery service and the riders, after successfully completing an application form, telephone interview and criminal record check, supply their own transport and mobile phone and pay £150 for an equipment pack which includes branded materials. Riders can then accept work through the app as and when they choose; there is no requirement for Deliveroo to offer work and no obligation on the riders to accept work. It is designed to be the ultimate means of flexible working.

Additionally, and a key factor in the gig economy case law to date, riders are allowed to provide a substitute of their choosing to carry out jobs on their behalf. Whilst the CAC struggled to understand why a rider would need to appoint a substitute, it held that personal service is a fundamental element of an employment relationship (and is explicitly set out in the definition of ‘worker’ under TULR(C)A). On this basis, it held that riders could not be deemed workers capable of being recognised by a union and entitled to benefit from the collective bargaining rights under the legislation.

In its challenge, the IWGB argued that it should be recognised by Deliveroo for the purposes of collective bargaining for its riders, which would allow it to bargain for, amongst other things, their terms and conditions and holiday pay. It alleged that to prevent this was in breach of the riders’ human rights under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which explicitly gives individuals the right to join trade unions.

In the first case to look at gig worker status in relation to Article 11, the High Court rejected the judicial review challenge and held that Article 11 was not engaged as riders are not in an employment relationship with Deliveroo. Further, it held that even if Article 11 had been engaged, the exclusion of non-workers under TULR(C)A is justified in its aim of limiting the cases in which collective bargaining applies and this provides a valid exemption from Article 11.

This is unlikely to be the last we hear on the subject of employment status and the gig economy. The IWGB has already confirmed its intention to appeal the High Court’s decision, which it sees as denying Deliveroo riders, and presumably, others operating within the gig economy, basic worker rights.

Read more about the gig economy in the UK and gig economy workers’ rights by reading Chirs Cook’s article.

CONTACT CHRIS

If you would like more information or advice relating to this article or an Employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Cook on 01727 798098.

Read the latest Employment Views & Insights
They seek to understand their clients and advise accordingly to achieve the outcomes that they require for their business needs.
Chambers and Partners
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
This Week’s Fine Imposed on Facebook Data

In a recently written article published in The Legal Diary, Christine Caffrey was asked to comment on the news of Facebook being fined €1.2bn…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Government Announces Changes to Working Time Regulations, TUPE and Non-Compete Clauses

Emily Morrison discusses the significant changes announced by the Government on Working Time Regulations, TUPE and Non-Compete Clauses.

Read More
SA Law Employment Laptop
Views & Insights
Employee Sabbaticals: Business Benefits and Tips on Getting the Policy Right

Gita Patel outlines the business benefits of offering sabbatical leave to employees.

Read More
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
As there is so much expertise on offer from SA Law they can provide a legal expert on all areas so that it can be handled under one roof.
Legal 500
SA Law Employment Laptop
Views & Insights
Employment Law Update

James Cresswell and Nishma Chudasama discuss the 5 legal updates employers need to know this April.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Can Legal Action be Taken Against Discriminatory Recruitment Criteria?

It has been ruled by several employment tribunals that gender critical beliefs should not be discriminated against in the workplace, and any discriminatory…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Consultation on Holiday Pay Following Harpur Trust v Brazel

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has concluded its consultation in response to the Harpur Trust v Brazel case, which…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Changes to look out for from the Spring Budget 2023

Getting people “back into work” is the main focus of Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Spring Budget announced on 15 March 2023. The reform will impact employees…

Read More
They are knowledgeable, with a commercial mindset, but also down to earth and friendly so it is easy to be very honest with them.
Chambers and Partners

© SA LAW 2023

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them alone. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.