The UK Supreme Court recently held that Deliveroo riders were not entitled to form a union and collectively bargain with Deliveroo for better working conditions due to a lack of an employment relationship. This decision marks the zenith of a legal battle that has spanned several years.
This matter started in 2017, with an original ruling by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), where Deliveroo riders expressed their desire for the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) to bargain for improved working conditions on their behalf. However, the CAC determined that the riders did not fit within the legal definition of a worker and hence could not collectively bargain. The decision prompted the IWGB and a group of Deliveroo riders to seek a judicial review, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court.
In their arguments before the Supreme Court, the IWGB claimed that the refusal to acknowledge the union for collective bargaining, based on the definition of a “worker” in the domestic legislation, would breach Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 11 of the ECHR, in essence, safeguards the rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others. However, all the five justices unanimously dismissed the appeal, re-emphasising that for Article 11 of the ECHR to apply, an employment relationship must exist between the claimants and Deliveroo.
Key to the Supreme Court’s decision was the contractual provision that allowed Deliveroo riders to substitute another rider to perform their jobs. The court found that this right of substitution was “entirely inconsistent” with an obligation to provide personal service, which is crucial to establishing an employment relationship under Article 11.
Reacting to the ruling, the IWGB published a statement exhibiting their disappointment with the judgement. They retorted, “Flexibility, including the option for account substitution, is no reason to strip workers of basic entitlements like fair pay and collective bargaining rights. This dangerous false dichotomy between rights and flexibility is one that Deliveroo and other gig economy giants heavily rely upon in efforts to legitimise their exploitative business models.” The IWGB raised concerns over Deliveroo’s “extreme exploitation of workers,” saying they are exploring their options under international law following this ruling.