Taxi Driver Online

self employed status confirmed

Courier app Deliveroo has won a landmark legal case regarding the employment status of its riders, signalling a precedent that could allow companies to continue operating within the “gig” model.

The case was brought to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) by the Independent Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) union, which had sought to have Deliveroo riders based in Camden and Kentish Town recognised as employees, with access to regular workplace benefits such as sick pay and the minimum wage, as well as the right to unionise.

The case hinged on the ability of riders to “substitute” their shifts to other workers, a right that Deliveroo maintained did not reflect traditional employment.

The CAC ruled in favour of Deliveroo’s case that riders would lose the flexibility that determined their employment choice. The company claimed that gig workers enjoyed being able to choose working patterns and should be regarded as self-employed.

Read more: A damning insider’s account of working for Deliveroo

“We find that the substitution right to be genuine, in the sense that Deliveroo have decided that riders have a right to substitute themselves both before and after they have accepted a particular job; and we have also heard evidence, that we accepted, of it being operated in practice,” the CAC said.

Deliveroo’s victory is the latest turn in the legal wrangling between gig economy employers and workers’ unions. On-demand taxi app Uber recently lost an appeal that saw two drivers win the right to be considered regular employees, with access to workplace benefits.

Although the latest case only covered a single area in one city, it could potentially set a precedent for Deliveroo riders across the UK, and the wider gig economy.

Celebrating the ruling, Dan Warne, Deliveroo UK and Ireland managing director, said: “This is a victory for all riders who have continuously told us that flexibility is what they value most about working with Deliveroo. We welcome the decision of the Committee.

“As we have consistently argued, our riders value the flexibility that self-employment provides. Riders enjoy being their own boss – having the freedom to choose when and where they work, and riding with other delivery companies at the same time.”

Responding to the Deliveroo legal victory, Julia Kermode, chief executive of The Freelancer & Contractor Services Association (FCSA), said the result was “good news” for both Deliveroo and riders who valued the flexibility of the gig model.

Kermode explained that the freedom and flexibility of self-employment was favoured by many highly skilled professionals, but warned of instances where self-employment was “forced upon people”.

“Employers should treat their workforces properly so that exploitation cannot happen and it is unacceptable that someworkers do not have minimum rights or protections. As the gig economy is on the rise we need to act to protect the vulnerable and precarious whilst not unfairly penalising genuinely self-employed people.”

Meanwhile, Chris McCullogh, CEO of scheduling platform Rotageek, declared that the Deliveroo victory signalled that “the gig economy is here to stay”.

However, McCullogh advised employers relying on a similar business model to monitor the treatment of workers carefully, and take steps to “foster loyalty and positivity within their workforce”.

“To attract and retain workers, there must not be a trade-off between job security and flexibility,” he added.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

In other words if you can accept or decline a job you ARE self employed

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

That's not what it says.

What it says is Deliveroo man gets a job, can't do it, so gives it to his mate to do without telling the company.

Not only would that be frowned upon in the taxi/PH trade, it is also in respect of PH illegal.

_________________
IDFIMH

Quite.

Our drivers regulally get other drivers to cover jobs. If the office is closed the phone is diverted to the drivers who are working and if a good job comes in they will pass on a small job to another driver and not always one of our own. We are all Hackney.

_________________
Grandad,

in our town it's common practice for jobs to get passed around from firm to firm or driver to driver especially at night. Certainly this judgement goes a long way to establishing the criteria

and now many companies like Uber AL etc will alter their working practices to fit so i hate to say it but Trotskys dream of drivers becoming employees is fading fast as i knew it would

what will come out of this is a clearer definition of what is self employed with perhaps some of the bigger companies offering benefits/incentives such as insurance deals to help with unexpected downtime

As for holiday pay well the whole point of self employment is you can choose when to work and when not to can't you Mr (10 holidays a year) Sussex but like a lot of things in life people have forgotten how to actually save up and budget for a holiday

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Well he does say PH, I remember the killer cars case and that was a job past on to a PH driver on the killer cars base from another private hire operator and the killer car operator told him it was illegal, but he insisted he was doing it, killer cars lost there ops licence, the other op got away with it, now if killer cars were Uber they would still be operating and that’s another story.

Please please tell me there wasn't, or isn't, a firm call Killer Cars.

_________________
IDFIMH

Like Sussex I think this is a red herring! Other news reports clearly state that the decision was only founded on the fact the person accepting the job could pass it onto ANYBODY that they wanted and Deliveroo didn't mind as well as the delivery was covered.

That will clearly never be allowed in the PH industry.

I am struggling to understand the concept of the worker classification between employed/self employed.

I also think the case against Uber is a lot weaker than that against Addison Lee.

Stating that Hackneys won't be affected is too simple. There are lots of hackneys controlled/operated by fleets, doing zero street hire work.

_________________
A member of the Hire or Reward Industry

No there wasn’t a company called killer cars, I was referring to

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30111&hilit=Killer+cars

I must admit I always thought it was just the two specifications myself.

However I understand why there are more than those two, and I agree with the middle way, so to speak.

There are loads and loads of good taxi/PH operators supplying drivers good quality work at good rates. They are not the problem.

What I see locally and nationally are many firms that are interested in ensuring that only the taxi/PH firm's owner earns a good living.

Drivers do need to earn a basic wage, they need to have some kind of sickness cover, and they should be entitled to have a holiday without bankrupting themselves.

Most firms don't allow drivers to work on other firms, all firms mandate drivers to follow the firm's prices, all firms discipline drivers and enforce their rules, all firms don't allow drivers to take their punters off them.

Now I'm not saying that's unreasonable, but those are working/workers requirements.

_________________
IDFIMH

And that's where the problem lies - treating people as employees by enforcing certain rules and conditions whilst at the same time saying they're self-employed.

They can't have it both ways, either you're free to control what you do (self employed) or your entire working day is controlled by someone else (employed).
It's one thing having a set of company standards to follow, but once you start enforcing prices, hours and shifts, jobs done and things like car colour/uniform/who you work for/and anything else you have no choice over it starts to appear as though you are more of an employee than self employed.

One of our local firms has told it's drivers that they are not to park up whilst waiting for a job but have to keep driving around empty as it makes the firm look busy. They have no choice, if they park they get hit with a fine ! If they are on a (compulsory) all night shift they are not allowed to have a break - again they get fined if they do. They've also been told if they want to stay on the firm they have to do a minimum number of hours each week, again if they don't, you guessed, fined. This same firm has compulsory hours, ALL DRIVERS HAVE TO WORK on Xmas day, Boxing Day, New Years Eve and all bank holidays - if you're not out between certain hours once again you get fined. How does that make them 'self-employed' ?

It doesn't, but what a scummy firm?

_________________
IDFIMH