New blow to Deliveroo. The magistrate of the Social Court number 2 of Zaragoza has dictated a judgment recognizing the employment relationship of the delivery people who they worked for Deliveroo and thus supports the lawsuit filed by the General Treasury of Social Security against the company.
In her sentence, Judge Itziar Ochoa is supported by the extensive and existing jurisprudence, according to sources of the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon (TSJA), its agreement with the criteria set out in the judgments issued by the Social Court number 19 of Madrid and the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid referring to the couriers employed by the company Roofoods Spain (Deliveroo).
In her resolution, the magistrate shows that the conditions of employment are the existence of a personal and voluntary provision of services, their paid nature, the alienation and the dependency of the employer.
In the case of Deliveroo distributors, in the judgment he argues that the requirement of remuneration is given, since the distributors have been paid for the provision of their services and even the company manages its tips, determining the way in which they could be paid and including them in the invoices prepared by the company itself, which for the magistrate it is a “clear sign of professionalism”. Despite the fact that the dealers are the owners of their vehicles and the mobile phones through which they receive the announcements of the distributions, the judge considers that “the means and assets of greatest importance for the development of the activity were not those” , but the ‘Deliveroo’ application itself, controlled and provided by the company.
And he affirms that the fundamental contribution of the distributors to the business of defendant company is your personal work, that is to say, their activity, since they carry out multiple trips to bring clients orders “in whose realization, negotiation, determination of the price and payment of the delivery service at no time intervene. “
Finally, regarding the concept of dependency, in the judgment it is argued that the distributors provide their services in a way “completely organized and governed by the company”, since it is not limited to hiring a food transport and delivery service, but rather establishes “with complete precision” the way in which the service is to be provided, which it is equal and homogeneous for all delivery men.
An appeal may be filed against this judgment before the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon, which must be announced in five days, although in this case the deadlines to carry out any procedural action are suspended during the validity of the royal decree of the state of alarm and in application of the Agreements of the Permanent Commission of the General Council of the Judicial Power.