Deliveroo has been accused of running a campaign of misinformation and implementing last-minute changes to contracts in an effort to prevent riders from gaining better employment rights.

In a key case relating to the gig economy, the Central Arbitration Committee is investigating whether Deliveroo’s drivers are independent contractors, as the company argues, or whether they should be classified as workers with rights to holiday pay, the national minimum wage and collective bargaining via a union.

The hearing relates to couriers in the Camden and Kentish Town districts of north London but is seen as a test case for riders across the UK, including those working for other firms similar to Deliveroo.

Deliveroo’s UK managing director, Dan Warne, said that the company was “committed to protecting the full flexibility that riders enjoy, and is fighting for riders ability to work with Deliveroo and its competitors at the same time”.

The food delivery firm tried to have the case dismissed on the basis that not enough riders in the Camden and Kentish Town area had expressed an interest in joining the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which backed strike action by riders last year.

Deliveroo told the CAC that fewer than 50 of the 213 riders signed up to its systems in the Camden area were union members.

However, the IWGB disputed those numbers and told the CAC panel that riders had been put off joining up by a “campaign of misinformation” by Deliveroo.

Quoting from emails and transcripts of recorded conversations, John Hendy QC, the barrister for the riders, said couriers had been told by Deliveroo managers that if they gained worker status they would no longer be classed as self-employed. He said the riders were also told they could be sacked for not wearing a uniform, would have to work set hours and be paid via PAYE so that they could not manage their own tax affairs.

Hendy said that Deliveroo had deliberately been “fogging” the definition of worker status to “intimidate riders from joining the IWGB”.

Previous cases have shown it is possible to be self-employed and classified as a worker, but Deliveroo’s director, David Scott, told the CAC that he had been legally advised that you could not.

Under questioning from Hendy, Scott admitted there was not a “direct connection” between a change in status for Deliveroo’s riders and the imposition of uniforms or hourly pay rates. But he said it would be difficult to calculate a fair piece rate for workers that ensured they earned the national minimum wage – so the company was likely to have to pay them by the hour and impose regular shifts. “We would have to be prescriptive,” he said.

It also emerged at the CAC tribunal that Deliveroo had recently made a series of changes to its contracts, including removing performance monitoring and a requirement for riders to wear its branded clothing. Both these factors are seen as central to differentiating between workers, who are service providers closely controlled by an employer, and self-employed contractors.

Deliveroo also now allows riders to bring in someone to cover their work if they want to. Being unable to send someone else to do your work is another key definition of a worker.

Hendy told the CAC the idea that Deliveroo riders could employ a substitute was “completely unreal”. He said anyone delivering food had to meet certain legal obligations, such as keeping their vehicle clean and ensuring personal hygiene, that Deliveroo gave detailed instructions to its riders about.

He said “the instructions you give riders is to ensure any legal duty is fulfilled” and that it was “unreal” to suggest riders could employ a substitute given how Deliveroo checked criminal background, equipment and health and safety knowledge.

Hendy said: “Do you think restaurant owners would be surprised that Deliveroo permits substitutes that may be convicted rapists or paedophiles untrained in food hygiene that have been told not to wear dirty clothes or to have dirty bags or to be warned about allergy contaminations ... they would be outraged.”

He added: “Either Deliveroo has no regard for its reputation or the picture you paint is false.”

Hendy said if riders were able to freely appoint substitutes then Deliveroo would also have no way of knowing if those people had properly been informed or trained in those matters. The company would also have no idea if a substitute was under 18 and therefore not able to deliver alcohol.



Scott confirmed that Deliveroo’s systems would not know if a substitute rider was under 18 but said that riders were bound by their contract to ensure that the substitute was suitably trained, safely equipped and did not have a criminal record.

However, he admitted that Deliveroo did not give its riders any specific advice on hiring a replacement or even a health and safety manual, or food or road safety document, which could be used to pass on the relevant information.