Deliveroo Wins But Who Loses?

The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) has found that a majority of Deliveroo riders in the bargaining unit proposed by the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) want collective bargaining rights for pay and holiday.

It is clear from this judgement that despite Deliveroo’s claims to the contrary, Deliveroo riders are not satisfied with their current terms and conditions and want worker rights, including holiday pay and minimum wage.

From Employment Experts Pinset Masons: The topic of employment status took a new turn this week. The judgment in Uber followed the ‘usual’ pattern, as the EAT confirmed the ET's decision that Uber drivers are workers. However, on Tuesday, a decision by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) has gone against the flow of decisions by deciding that cycle couriers for Deliveroo are self-employed, and not workers.
 
An application to be recognised for collective bargaining purposes was brought by the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain (IWGB). In order to be recognised for collective bargaining purposes, a Union must have 10% membership and the support of the majority of workers within the proposed bargaining unit under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (TULRCA) 1992. Deliveroo did not accept that its cycle couriers were workers, considering them self-employed. The CAC agreed with Deliveroo, accepting that the riders have a real right of substitution under new contract documentation it has rolled out, and accepted evidence of this being operated in practice. This was "fatal to the Union's claim". The couriers were not workers under s296 of TULRCA. Because of this, IWGB can not claim for recognition and for rights to negotiate on pay, hours and holidays.
 
This is, of course, not an ET decision. It is significant, though, and will be a blow to other unions seeking recognition in the gig economy. The decision of the CAC came down to Deliveroo allowing substitution – with evidence to prove it. In the Uber decision, it notes that "substitution is not allowed". The Uber case will be appealed, but the Deliveroo CAC case can only be judicially reviewed. Employment status has been one of the biggest employment law topics of the year, and this looks set to continue into 2018.

ABC Note: The Deliveroo business model allows riders to substitute themselves, but the company argued why would they want to do that? Riders can log on and off the Deliveroo app depending on their availability. At the ABC we are argue that the lack of pensions means that in years to come, these riders racing around on bikes 'fit as a whippet' today could need to have taxpayer support later in life. It is not just the rider’s decision, many of them who may not worry about the future - the problems of sickness, disability and old age. We need to think for them. With more people in the world and less people working because of automation, the problems of funding citizens in old age could be a real issue. The tax avoiders of today like Deliveroo may gain in the short term, but the long-term burden will fall on the rest of society.

The case can be accessed below.