Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and another [2023] UKSC 43 concerned a seven-year campaign by Deliveroo riders for collective bargaining rights.
In 2016, the Independent Workers Union, an independent trade union, submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee that the union be recognised by Deliveroo for collective bargaining in respect of riders in Camden and Kentish Town.
The application was refused on the basis the riders were not ‘workers’ as defined by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 since Deliveroo did not require them to provide delivery services personally—instead they could engage a substitute courier to deliver the item on their behalf. The union sought judicial review of the decision but was unsuccessful at both the High Court and Court of Appeal.
Delivering their judgment, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Rose said it was ‘particularly significant’ that, as the Central Arbitration Committee found, ‘there was no policing by Deliveroo of a rider’s use of a substitute and riders would not be criticised or sanctioned for using a substitute.
‘It found that Deliveroo did not object to the practice of substitution by a rider for profit or to riders working simultaneously for competitors of Deliveroo… Riders are thus free to reject offers of work, to make themselves unavailable and to undertake work for competitors… these features are fundamentally inconsistent with any notion of an employment relationship'.
Employment lawyer Rob Smedley, director, Freeths, said: ‘The Supreme Court has held firm on the current approach to worker status and the need for personal service as the key ingredient.
‘A right of substitution alongside evidence of it actually happening in practice remains the main obstacle to those trying to secure additional rights.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
