Again Deliveroo delay tactics in lawsuit
On Wednesday, April 14, the appeal hearing took place in the case that FNV had filed against Deliveroo. Deliveroo has again succeeded in applying yet another delaying tactic. During the hearing she managed to surprise both the court and the FNV with new arguments. After a suspension, the court decided to adjourn the hearing.
With the new arguments Deliveroo tries to argue that it does not fall under the Collective Labor Agreement for Professional Goods Transport. The arguments were so technical that the FNV was given the space to respond in writing.
Deliveroo is a food delivery service
The FNV will certainly take the opportunity and indicate that the new arguments are irrelevant. Deliveroo is a food delivery service. That is clear to everyone, except for Deliveroo itself apparently. After the written response from the FNV, the court will decide whether Deliveroo will be given permission to introduce this new point at this late stage in the proceedings.
Waiting longer for justice
The FNV is disappointed that there is still no justice for Deliveroo's meal deliverers. They now have to continue on the road for too low a wage and with insecurity about work. The FNV is not surprised by this Deliveroo promotion. Deliveroo has drawn this card before. Prior to the hearing, she did a 'pre-challenge'. As a result, new counselors had to be appointed. Deliveroo also previously switched law firms.
What are Deliveroo's new arguments?
- Deliveroo first saw itself as a tech company or mixed company. In all annual reports and in the prospectus of April 2021, she invariably describes herself as a digital food delivery service. Now she describes herself as a platform company providing services to restaurants, riders and consumers. Deliveroo calls this an ecosystem. According to her, Deliveroo's earnings model is not meal delivery, because that's what they spend money on. She only offers this service to attract restaurants. Because they pay a commission to Deliveroo.
- Deliveroo explains the scope of the article of the Collective Labor Agreement for Transport on the basis of the (history of the) Goods Road Transport Act. Deliveroo believes that a logical explanation means that the transport of goods by bicycle cannot be covered. The argument was accompanied by many technical details and, moreover, according to the FNV, it is incorrect. The collective labor agreement is very clear and does not distinguish between means of transport. And the collective labor agreement is where an employee or a company goes. He or she does not have to conduct legal historical research to see if it is correct