Employment
Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and another [2023] UKSC 43, [2023] All ER (D) 103 (Nov)
The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellant’s appeal held, among other things, that the first respondent Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) rigorously scrutinised the substance of the relationship between Deliveroo and the riders. Its detailed examination of how the new contract, and in particular the substitution provisions, operated in practice closely scrutinised whether the contractual provisions genuinely reflected the true relationship. Particularly significant, in that regard, were the following findings of the CAC. It found that 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 despite the purported freedom to do so. It found that, despite Deliveroo’s right of termination on one week’s notice for any reason, it had not terminated fee per delivery basis contracts for a rider’s failure to accept a certain percentage of orders or failure to make themselves sufficiently available. Further,
