In the first day of hearings Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) barrister John Hendy QC outlined the campaign of intimidation used by Deliveroo to attempt to dissuade their riders from joining the IWGB and supporting the potential collective bargaining unit.
The hearing before the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) will determine whether the Deliveroo riders are workers and whether the IWGB is likely to get the support of a majority of riders for collective bargaining in the Camden and Kentish Town (CKT) zone in London.
The company had engaged in an ongoing campaign where they told riders that if they were to be classified as workers they would lose their flexibility, be forced onto PAYE and be forced to use a uniform, as Hendy demonstrated in his cross examination of Operations Director for the UK and Ireland David Scott.
-
Phone calls that seemed to be scripted were made to riders in the Camden and Kentish Town zone (The zone were the IWGB hopes to set up a collective bargaining unit) where they were told that they would face the above changes if they were put on worker status.
-
An email was sent to all riders on the eve of the tribunal repeating much of this misinformation.
-
Surveys were carried out by the company were managers would ask riders if they were members of the the union, followed by questions on their satisfaction with their employment conditions.
The objective of this intimidation was to dissuade riders from answering a petition saying they would support the unit. Under current laws in order to establish a collective bargaining unit, a union must demonstrate that:
-
At least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the union
-
At least 50% of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to be supportive of the bid for collective bargaining
There were further inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the numbers provided by Deliveroo. Deliveroo claims that 214 riders operate in CKT area. Yet under examination there is no information to confirm that these riders have done more than one order anywhere in London in the last 6 months. Instead, several statements made in internal documents and at the select committee give the impression the number is much closer to 60.
Deliveroo’s stated substitution policy – where riders can choose a substitute that doesn’t work for Deliveroo to do deliveries for them – also seems to have problems, as the burden on running all checks, including whether the substitute has an unspent conviction, falls on the rider.
“This person has access to flats or apartment numbers…Mr X could be a convicted rapist or paedophile,” Hendy noted during the proceedings.
He also asked if the responsibility of checking whether a substitute had any open sores, viruses or eye infections would also fall on the rider appointing the substitute. Mr Scott responded that that would be the case.
The same applies for checks on the substitute’s bike, her/his ability to drive safely on the road and whether she/he is legally allowed to work in the UK.
Hendy also questioned the ability of riders to take several orders from competing companies, since a rider is only aware of the destination of an order once she/he picks up that order for the restaurant.
Deliveroo currently classifies its riders as independent contractors. Workers – a category of self-employed – also have the right to a guaranteed minimum wage and holiday pay.
The hearings continue on 24 and 25 May.
