If the Ukrainian labour inspection renews its activity, the main question will touch on how to categorise the relationship between Glovo and its riders.

Prior to 2019, Spanish courts had no consolidated position concerning Glovo’s business model. In some regions, Spanish courts identified couriers as not being truly self-employed and found that they had been dismissed unlawfully, but in others – they didn’t. “Maybe one day the [Spanish] Supreme Court will decide, setting a precedent,” reflected one Spanish outlet.

In July 2019, the Spanish Supreme Court identified a Glovo courier as an employee of the company. The Court’s argument ran that without the Glovo platform, a person simply would not be able to deliver food, so the Glovo application is actually a means of production. Conversely, without couriers, the company would not be able to deliver the food. Couriers have no right to change the terms of the contractual relationship with the company, which indicates the asymmetry of power. Glovo actually acts as an employer, as it has a deciding influence on the provision of offline services and determines their maximum cost. The company indirectly controls the execution of work – through the Glovo app and location tracking. Finally, the grounds for termination of the relationship are similar to disciplinary grounds for dismissal (improper performance of duties, delays).

Notably, the Spanish Supreme Court cited European Parliament Directive 2019/1152 and of the European Council in June 2019 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union. These documents proclaim a minimum set of rights for those employed in the “sharing economy”. Glovo experts have doubted whether the Directive could be applied to Glovo workers, because they can be classified as self-employed.

Conclusions

Alongside other platforms, Glovo has created a challenge not only in Ukraine, but also in the European Union.

Previous EU directives on atypical forms of work used the concept of “equal working conditions with comparable workers”. For example, fixed-term workers or part-time workers received the right to demand a minimum set of guarantees, established for “standard” employees who work in a similar situation. But this doesn’t fit into situations where employer uses atypical workers exclusively. Yet the economic essence of these models isn’t new, they are similar to those which were used under early capitalism. “Breaking up jobs into small, low-skilled tasks is simply old wine in new bottles,” proclaims researcher Kurt Vandaele in his study of platform work.

Will Glovo change how it treats Spanish couriers after the Supreme Court ruling? “If that were the case, the solution would be to grow in other countries so that Spain would represent a smaller percentage of our business,” this is what Oscar Pierre, CEO and founder of Glovo, said in 2018. The Spanish Supreme Court can’t force Glovo to change their practice everywhere it works, including Ukraine. But showing these examples of harmful practice is important: multinational startups are sensitive to public opinion. Partners of Glovo such as McDonald’s should consider how ethical it is to work with companies that fail to comply with minimum working standards.

Meanwhile, riders’ actions speak for themselves: couriers in Ukraine are saying that working conditions at a new delivery service, Menu Group, are better than Glovo, such as riders receiving accident insurance from the company. With the Ukrainian state constrained by the standard neoliberal agenda, it’s an interesting thought: could market forces help to deliver justice in Ukraine’s delivery sector? Perhaps, but at least so far - only in response to pressure from young workers.

Ukrainians believed that multinational businesses could bring higher levels of social standards to workplaces. Glovo has helped to dispel these illusions. Could they go back and try to build a civilised social dialogue with their riders? Right now, it seems like they’ve passed the point of no return.