Deliveroo not obliged to recognise rider union for collective bargaining purposes
The Supreme Court has handed down a judgment confirming that a group of Deliveroo drivers were not in an employment relationship for the purposes of the right to form and join trade unions.
Background
In the case of Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and anor, a group of Deliveroo riders became members of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (Union). Deliveroo refused to recognise the Union for the purpose of collective bargaining, so the Union applied to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) for compulsory recognition. The result of a successful application would have meant that Deliveroo would have been obliged to negotiate with the Union on the pay, hours and holidays of affected riders.
The group of riders in this case work under non-negotiable supplier agreements, which describe the riders as independent contractors. Riders are entitled to engage or employ a substitute without Deliveroo's prior approval, however the substitute must not have previously had a supplier agreement terminated by Deliveroo. Riders are not obliged to accept any jobs offered. There is also no obligation on Deliveroo to provide work, or on the riders to be available at dedicated times. Riders also provide their own bikes and phones, which are required in order to carry out the work.
The CAC rejected the Union's application for recognition on the basis that the riders were not 'workers' in law. In this context, a 'worker' is a person who normally works or seeks to work under a contract of employment, or under any other contract whereby they undertake to personally perform work or services for somebody who is not a professional client of theirs.
The Union applied for judicial review of the CAC's decision. When this was unsuccessful, the Union appealed to the Court of Appeal and then subsequently to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It found that the riders were not in an 'employment relationship' for the purposes of Article 11 European Convention on Human Rights, which is the right to freedom of assembly and association. The question of whether Article 11 is engaged depends on there being an employment relationship between the parties. The fact that the riders enjoyed an almost unfettered right to appoint a substitute was inconsistent with the obligation to provide personal service. The obligation to provide personal service is an essential requirement of an 'employment relationship' for the purposes of Article 11.
Comment
This landmark Supreme Court judgment brings to an end a lengthy legal battle by the Deliveroo riders. It offers useful clarity to the law on applications for trade union recognition. This is an example of a case where a gig economy relationship has not led to the existence of a worker relationship. The substitution clause in the supplier agreement proved essential to the question of whether the riders were workers. However, had the right not substitution not been so broad in reality, the outcome of the case might have been different.