- The Supreme Court found that the relationship between Glovo and its rider is employment, not that of a self-employed worker.
- The platform sets the conditions, owns the app and assigns the orders: it is not a mere intermediary.
- Any company with self-employed collaborators should review how they work in practice, whatever the contract says.
On 23 September 2020 the full Social Chamber of the Supreme Court made public its decision in the case of a rider for the Glovo platform; the judgment, number 805/2020, is dated 25 September. The court declared that the relationship between the rider and the company is one of employment, not that of a self-employed worker, so the rider must be registered in the General Social Security Scheme. It was the first time the Supreme Court had ruled on the question.
The ruling ended years of contradictory decisions by courts and higher courts on delivery riders for digital platforms. Its reach goes beyond Glovo: it sets criteria that can apply to other business models in which an app organises the work of formally self-employed people, and which the Labour Inspectorate and the courts may use in similar cases. For the market of delivery, transport or at-home service platforms, it is a change in the frame of reference.
How the court reasoned
To decide whether a relationship is one of employment, the law and case law look at two main features: dependence, that is, working within another’s organisation and under their instructions, and alienness (ajenidad), that is, that the fruits of the work and the market risks belong to the company and not to the person doing it. The Supreme Court considered that both were present here.
Among the elements it highlighted are that the company sets the essential conditions of the service, owns the digital platform, which is the essential asset of the activity, and assigns orders using criteria such as location, schedule, customer ratings and history. The riders, it added, do not have their own business organisation but provide the service integrated into the platform’s. The ruling also declined to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Beyond platforms
The doctrine does not turn every relationship with self-employed people into an employment one. A professional who decides when, how and for whom to work, with their own means and their own clients, keeps self-employed status. What the court examines is the reality of the relationship, not the label on the contract: if it is employment, it is so even if something else was signed.
That is why the risk is measured in day-to-day practice: imposed schedules, de facto exclusivity, compulsory use of the company’s tools or uniforms, evaluations that condition future work, inability to refuse assignments without penalty. The more elements coincide, the greater the likelihood that the relationship will be treated as employment by the Inspectorate or a judge.
What to review
Companies that work with self-employed people or external collaborators should carry out an internal review with their employment adviser: who they are, how they are organised, what they receive and what instructions they follow. The consequences of reclassification can include back contributions, Inspectorate penalties and wage claims, so doubtful cases should be identified before they become a dispute.
For self-employed professionals themselves, the ruling is also an invitation to review their situation. It is worth keeping contracts, invoices and messages that show how they really work, and consulting an employment lawyer if there are doubts about their status. General information: each case depends on its circumstances, and this ruling does not by itself resolve every situation. An orderly review is far cheaper than a mass claim.
What determines the nature of an employment relationship is how people work, not what it is called.
This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.
