This was a judicial review challenge to an earlier decision that Deliveroo delivery riders are not considered 'workers' for the purposes of establishing the right to collective bargaining arrangements. The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) previously held these individuals are self-employed contractors and not workers.

The High Court agreed that these drivers were not in ‘an employment relationship’ based on the circumstances. It rejected the argument that the restriction of statutory collective bargaining rights breached Art.11 of the ECHR. However, it held that even if Art.11 had been engaged, the interference would have been justified.

The restrictions imposed were deemed permissible where they are “necessary in a democratic society… for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.  The restrictions were also considered to be justified based on the concern of preserving freedom of business and also of contract. Further, the drivers were not precluded from joining unions or making voluntary arrangements but only from using the UK’s legal mechanism for compulsory union recognition.

Practical Lessons

This decision supports Deliveroo’s position that its drivers are self-employed. It argued that the flexibility it offers these individuals is a major advantage and must be preserved. Of note, however, is that the High Court doubted whether the decision would have wider implications for other “gig economy” cases. It should be noted that Deliveroo is the only “gig economy” company to have successfully argued this point.

The Court of Appeal is currently deciding whether ‘worker’ is the correct employment status for Uber drivers and that decision will attract a lot of attention. However, considering the range of operating models that exist for such businesses, neither this nor the Uber decision is likely to conclusively decide the self-employed/worker question.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3342.html