In IWGB and Deliveroo, the Central Arbitration Committee refused an application by the IWGB trade union for statutory recognition under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA). The CAC found that Deliveroo riders in the proposed bargaining unit do not come within the definition of a worker, as required under S.296(1)(b) TULRCA, as they do not have to perform work personally. The written agreement states it is personal to the Rider and may not be assigned to a substitute without Deliveroo’s express written agreement, meaning that Riders have a right to substitute themselves both before and after they have accepted a job. This right is genuine, is operated in practice and not policed by Deliveroo. As Riders do not undertake to do work or services personally for another party this was fatal to the Union’s claim. The CAC highlighted that the factual situation in this case is very different from that of Uber private hire drivers, or Excel or City Sprint.

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.