In Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine, the EAT held that an ET had not made an error in deciding that when ‘A’, a delivery courier, was undertaking fixed hours slots, he was a ‘worker’ and not an independent contractor in business on his own account as argued by SD Ltd. During the slot, ‘A’ was under the control of SD Ltd, was unable to leave the zone he had agreed to operate in, required to undertake the deliveries offered to him in return for a guaranteed hourly wage and could not hold himself out as being available to other delivery companies. While ‘A’ could release a slot he had signed up to back into the pool of approved couriers via the Staffomatic app, he had no control over whether, or who, picked up the slot he had released, and so had no unrestricted right of substitution. ‘A’’s contract therefore required him to do or perform personally work for SD Ltd and he was a ‘worker’.
Gig economy courier a ‘worker’ as no unrestricted right to substitute someone else
Article by: Makbool Javaid |