Supreme Court Rules Deliveroo Riders Not 'Workers' for Collective Bargaining Rights Under Article 11 ECHR

Introduction

The case “Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and another” addresses complex matters regarding the definition and rights of workers, especially in the context of collective bargaining under UK law. The Supreme Court was asked to deliberate on whether Deliveroo riders fell under the definition of “workers” for the purposes of collective bargaining and, by extension, whether their rights are protected under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article systematically analyses the judgment, distilling the crucial topics and legal principles applied.

Key Facts

Deliveroo riders in London, represented by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, sought collective bargaining rights to negotiate better working conditions. Deliveroo’s resistance led to the invocation of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA). The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) determined that the riders were not “workers” under section 296 of TULRCA due to their genuine right to substitution predicated in their contract with Deliveroo. Consequently, the riders were deemed outside the protective scope of collective bargaining mechanisms under UK law, and associated rights under Article 11 ECHR were challenged.

Legal Principles

Definition of “Worker” and the Scope of Article 11 ECHR

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on the autonomous concept of an employment relationship within Article 11. Departing from domestic law’s detailed stipulations, it held that Article 11 “worker” status involves a broader inclusive criterion based on a multifactorial test focused on the actualities of the relationship. Crucially, an authentic and practically exercised right to substitution negates the personal service obligation essential to an Article 11 employment relationship.

Right to Collective Bargaining

Contention arose regarding the interpretation of Article 11 as to whether it includes a right to compel employers to engage in collective bargaining. The judgment discussed various Strasbourg rulings, underscoring the evolutionary trajectory of Article 11 and suggesting that a wide margin of appreciation is accorded to member states in determining union freedoms’ boundaries. The legal precedent emphasized that despite advancements, compelling collective bargaining has not been firmly established as an Article 11 right.

Outcomes

The Supreme Court held that Deliveroo riders are not “workers” possessing the right under Article 11 to join a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, due to the non-existence of an obligation for personal service. Consequently, Deliveroo’s model did not infringe on rights under Article 11; hence no need arose to justify exclusions under Article 11(2) or to read down domestic legislation for compatibility with the riders’ purported rights.

Furthermore, the Court dismissed the alternative approach suggesting a discrimination analogue. It clarified that the current Strasbourg jurisprudence does not substantiate a progression towards a right to compulsory collective bargaining implicit within Article 11.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Deliveroo riders, under the specific and somewhat unique terms of their engagement with Deliveroo, do not attain the status of “workers” with the trade union rights encased in Article 11 of the ECHR – a pivotal consideration for the labor landscape of the gig economy. The case leaves intact the UK’s legislative framework demarcating the boundaries of worker status and collective bargaining, revealing the nuanced balances inherent in such definitions and their interplay with human rights principles. This judgment provides a clear demarcation for legal professionals navigating the rights of union representation and collective bargaining within the evolving gig economy sector.