FILE - This Tuesday, July 11, 2017 file photo, shows a deliveroo logo on a bicycle in London. Britain鈥檚 top court on Tuesday ruled that riders for one of the country鈥檚 biggest meal delivery companies don鈥檛 have the right to collective bargaining because they aren鈥檛 employees, a decision that may have broad implications for the gig economy in the U.K. (AP Photo/Frank Augstein, File)
FILE - This Tuesday, July 11, 2017 file photo, shows a deliveroo logo on a bicycle in London. Britain鈥檚 top court on Tuesday ruled that riders for one of the country鈥檚 biggest meal delivery companies don鈥檛 have the right to collective bargaining because they aren鈥檛 employees, a decision that may have broad implications for the gig economy in the U.K. (AP Photo/Frank Augstein, File)
LONDON (AP) 鈥 Britain鈥檚 top court said Tuesday that riders for one of the country鈥檚 biggest meal delivery companies don鈥檛 have collective bargaining rights because they aren鈥檛 employees, a setback for gig economy workers who are pushing for better pay and working conditions.
The Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling came in a case filed by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, which had sought to organize the people who deliver takeout meals for Deliveroo, a rival of companies like Uber Eats and Just Eat. After Deliveroo refused to negotiate, the union appealed, arguing that the company was violating rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
But the court ruled that the right to collective bargaining applies only when there is an 鈥渆mployment relationship鈥 between the workers and the company. Deliveroo riders aren鈥檛 employees because their contract gives them the 鈥渧irtually unfettered right鈥 to pass deliveries on to a substitute, the court said.
The decision is the latest in a series of U.K. court decisions that are defining labor rights in the gig economy, where companies have sought to define workers as independent contractors with few of the job protections or benefits of traditional employees. While some workers enjoy the flexibility this offers, others say they are forced to work long hours just to make ends meet, with insecure employment making it difficult to plan for the future.
In a , the Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers were not independent contractors under U.K. law because the company controlled how they provided their services. Tuesday鈥檚 ruling in the Deliveroo stalls the expansion of worker rights, at least for now.
The ruling is a 鈥渧ery significant win for Deliveroo,鈥 said Nick Hawkins, a partner at the U.K. law firm Knights.
鈥淭his will be a ruling that other gig economy business will have been watching closely, with no doubt some checking for the existence of substitution clauses in their contracts,鈥 Hawkins said.
Deliveroo welcomed the decision, saying it confirmed lower court rulings that the company鈥檚 riders are self-employed.
鈥淭his is a positive judgment for Deliveroo riders, who value the flexibility that self-employed work offers,鈥 the company said in a statement.
The union called the ruling a disappointment.
鈥淔lexibility, including the option for account substitution, is no reason to strip workers of basic entitlements like fair pay and collective bargaining rights,鈥 the union said. 鈥淭his dangerous false dichotomy between rights and flexibility is one that Deliveroo and other gig economy giants rely heavily upon in efforts to legitimize their exploitative business models.鈥
But attorneys like Shireen Shaikh, employment senior counsel at the law firm Taylor Wessing, said it would have been surprising if the court had reached a different conclusion. That said, she pointed out that since the litigation began, Deliveroo had reached a voluntary agreement with the GMB union that offers a mechanism for negotiating pay and other conditions 鈥渙utside the statutory framework we associate with employees and workers.''
鈥淭his demonstrates how the legal question of status is sometimes becoming distinct from the question of which rights to afford to gig workers, not least from a reputational ... perspective,'' she said in statement.
