A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 5 December 2017
In 2016, the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain submitted an application for recognition to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) for recognition for collective bargaining in respect of riders in the Camden zone. Deliveroo argued that the application could not be accepted because the drivers were not workers. It also argued that other conditions for acceptance were not met (this alert does not cover these arguments).
The CAC had to consider whether or not these drivers were workers. The definition of "worker" under the legislation relevant to statutory recognition is "an individual who works, or normally works or seeks to work a) under a contract of employment, or b) under any other contract whereby he undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract who is not a professional client of his". This definition is very close to the definition of "worker" in relation to other worker's rights (e.g. the right to paid holiday and to receive the National Minimum Wage).
The key question for the CAC was whether the drivers are obliged to perform services personally. Case law has shown that, where there is a genuine and unfettered right of substitution, the individual is not obliged to perform services personally, and will not therefore be a worker.
The Deliveroo riders' contracts contain a number of provisions about substitution, including:
There was evidence of this right of substitution being used in practice, one individual having subcontracted work for a 15-20% share in the delivery fee.
The CAC found that this was a genuine and almost unfettered right of substitution. The riders were not therefore obliged to provide services personally, and they were not workers.
As the CAC commented, the factual situation in this case was very different from the Uber case. With the Deliveroo riders, the issue was whether or not the riders were obliged to provide services personally. This has not been in serious dispute in the other recent cases about worker status. Had the Uber contracts contained a genuine and unfettered right of substitution, the drivers would not have been workers. It is worth noting that this was a CAC case, so not binding on Employment Tribunals.
Employers often include substitution clauses in contracts with their service providers. However, if the right to substitute is not genuine, the mere inclusion of the clause in the contract will not be sufficient to avoid worker status.
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6583
+44 (0)20 7894 6564
Zoë Wigan, Ceri Fuller
Ceri Fuller, Zoë Wigan
Philip Harman, Joanne Bell
David Williams, James Rhodes, Christopher Air
Joanne Bell, Deborah Hely
Udara Ranasinghe, Ceri Fuller