The UK Supreme Court held Tuesday that Deliveroo riders were not entitled to form a union and collectively bargain with Deliveroo for better working conditions due to a lack of employment relationship.

This case was an appeal from an original ruling by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) in 2017. Deliveroo riders wanted the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) to bargain with Deliveroo on their behalf in order to gain better working conditions. However, the Central Arbitration Committee held the riders did not fall under the legal definition of a worker and could therefore not collectively bargain. The IWGB and a group of Deliveroo riders sought a judicial review of this decision, which made its way to the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court, the IWGB argued that “a refusal to recognise the Union for collective bargaining based on the definition of “worker” in the domestic legislation would constitute a breach of article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR].” Article 11 of the ECHR “protects the general rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others.” The five justices unanimously dismissed the appeal. It was held that in order for Article 11 of the ECHR to apply to the claimants, they needed to be in an employment relationship with Deliveroo. After scrutinising the contract, it was affirmed that the riders were not in an employment relationship for the purposes of Article 11. The judges focused on the ability of Deliveroo riders to substitute another rider to do their job. This right to substitution was described as “totally inconsistent with the existence of an obligation to provide personal service which is essential to the existence of an employment relationship within article 11.”

In response to the ruling, the IWGB released a statement expressing their “disappointment” in the decision. They stated:

As a Union we cannot accept that thousands of riders should be working without key protections . . . Flexibility, including the option for account substitution, is no reason to strip workers of basic entitlements like fair pay and collective bargaining rights. This dangerous false dichotomy between rights and flexibility is one that Deliveroo and other gig economy giants rely heavily upon in efforts to legitimise their exploitative business models.

The IWGB highlighted Deliveroo’s “extreme exploitation of workers” and further stated that they are considering their options under international law following this ruling.