CitySprint bike courier is also a worker

Following the recent Uber ‘worker’ decision, another employment tribunal has found that a bike courier working for CitySprint is also a worker rather than self-employed, giving her rights to holiday pay, SSP, and the National Living/Minimum Wage.

Brief details of Dewhurst vs CitySprint

Maggie Dewhurst cycled up to 50 miles per day for CitySprint, between 9.30am to 6.30pm, 4 days a week. When she started work each day she would speak to a controller at the company and needed to log onto a system called ‘Citytrakker’, which tracked her location and helped allocate courier jobs along with the Controller. She was also in touch with the controllers throughout the day by radio / mobile phone and was told where to pick parcels up and where to deliver them to.

She told the tribunal that she had a “fear” of getting less work if she did not do what she was asked. Dewhurst said that while it was possible for her to refuse to carry out a job, it is “widely understood” that this is “not a good idea” as the controllers would find that “disruptive”. Dewhurst said “Ultimately this would impact on the amount of work I am allocated.”

Dewhurst was helped by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which says courier companies have been denying their workers appropriate employment rights.

The contract

Her contract was called a ‘Confirmation of a Tender to Supply Courier Services’ and described her as self-employed saying:

• that she could determine the way in which jobs were performed including the route.
• that CitySprint was not obliged to offer her work at any time, and she was not obliged to accept any job allocated to her.
• that she could accept work from other organisations whilst working for CitySprint.
• that she could provide a ‘substitute’ to do her work.

The Tribunal

Had no doubt the contract was actually not a genuinely self-employed contract, but that she was in fact a worker, providing a personal service, while on the ‘circuit’ i.e. logged into the tracking system (Dewhurst had originally claimed she was an employee and a worker, but later dropped the ’employee’ claim). In spite of the written terms of the contract, the Tribunal looked at the practical reality of the working relationship between CitySprint and Dewhurst and found that:

• Dewhurst could not determine how the jobs were performed – she was told to smile when greeting customers, she had to wear a CitySprint uniform,
• She could not choose the jobs she carried out when logged into the tracking system,
• She could not realistically undertake work for other employers at the same time,
• She would find it difficult to find a ‘substitute’ for herself (other than swapping jobs with other Couriers working for CitySprint who were already on the circuit),
• She was expected to work when she said she would (she had to ring in if she was going to be late or was sick and had to book leave in advance),
• She was directed by a Controller who assigned jobs – her only discretion was the actual route she used to get to jobs,
• She was fully integrated into the business,
• Although CitySprint said that couriers were paid through a billing and invoice system, the reality was that couriers did not submit invoices, but CitySprint automatically calculated their payments and paid them weekly in arrears.

Expect an Appeal!