Relationship of riders with the distribution platform: TRADE

The TSJ Madrid considers that it is not labor but typical of a TRADE relationship. The ruling contains a favorable vote to consider the relationship as labor in line with the TSJ Asturias that issued the first ruling in supplication on this issue.

A distributor of Glovo presents, in front of the distribution platform, 3 successive lawsuits: of tacit dismissal, first; of indemnified termination of the contract for lack of effective occupation, secondly, and finally, of express dismissal.

A Social Court dismisses the 3 lawsuits processed in an accumulated manner, being the common note in all of them the request for recognition of the labor relationship of the relationship between the parties. Against the qualification of the worker as TRADE, the worker appeals in supplication when considering that his relationship with the company meets the characteristics of a work contract (remuneration, seniority and dependency).

The TSJ Madrid considers that the characteristic notes of TRADE concur in the worker, which is evidenced in the following circumstances.

• Freedom of choice of the time slot in which you wanted to work. Within that period the worker may not activate the self-assignment position, which means that he wishes not to be available.
• Freedom to accept the orders you wish to make, being able to reject them even after their execution has begun.
• Freedom to choose the route to reach the destination set by the customer, being the one who establishes the characteristics of the product and the method of delivery, establishing a direct relationship between the dealer and the customer.
• Personal performance of the activity without having workers in charge, putting the scarce material means required to carry it out: a motorcycle and a mobile phone.
• Membership to the RETA.
• Remuneration based on the number of services provided and not set per unit of time.
• Non-existence of an exclusive agreement, with respect to the limits set by the definition of TRADE itself.
• No need to justify absences just by mere communication.
• Assumption of responsibility for the good end of the service, charging it only if the client ended up satisfied, and assumption to the final customer of the damages or losses that the product could suffer during transport.

From these notes, the TSJ Madrid concludes that the dealer organized his own activity with complete autonomy without any submission to the corporate circle and organizer.

The personal benefit of the activity and the remunerated nature of the activity exclude the concurrence of the most outstanding notes of an employment relationship: dependency and ajeneity. Therefore, the TSJ Madrid dismisses the appeal.