Deliveroo Riders have been classified as self-employed contractors by the UK’s Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), which oversees collective bargaining law.
Recent contractual changes between Deliveroo and their Riders impacted on couriers’ rights to the national minimum wage, union recognition and holiday pay. In mounting a challenge to the effect of these changes the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) brought a case on behalf of couriers in the Camden and Kentish Town districts in an effort to gain recognition by Deliveroo. The company however refused recognition arguing the Union does not represent the views of its Riders nationally, and that its Riders are not workers therefore the labour relations legislation did not apply.
A panel was established by the Central Arbitration Committee to review the case. The pivotal consideration of the panel in this case was whether the Union’s application to the CAC was valid, made in accordance with the legislation and admissible. To determine this it was essential for the panel to assess the terms of contract and practices of the Deliveroo Riders and decide if they qualified as “workers” as defined in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or if they were, as Deliveroo argued, self-employed contractors. The panel analysed closely the recruitment procedures of the company, the written contractual terms with Riders (including provision of equipment, insurance, payment, in the case of these Riders, a fee per delivery and termination procedures) and the conduct of the parties in practice.
Critical to the Union’s arguments was the panel’s decision on the so-called ‘substitution conundrum’ which is the right to ask a substitute to perform a job. By law, anyone with the right to do this is classed as self-employed. Deliveroo has a substitution clause which allows Riders to substitute themselves both before and after they have accepted a delivery job under their contract with Deliveroo. Arguments were submitted on the part of the Union that this right in reality did not exist as it was not necessary, desirable or practicable given the App system utilised by Deliveroo. However counter evidence was submitted to the panel that demonstrated the right being realised and operated in practice. On the basis of this evidence, the panel determined a genuine right to substitution to exist. This right proved to be fatal to the Union’s argument that the Riders qualified as “workers” under the Act and thus, despite the CAC accepting the all other aspects of the application made by IWBG, the application of the Union was not accepted.
Click here for the full judgment.
Click here for a previous Bulletin article on the employment rights of Uber drivers.