The court refused to recognize the employment contract with Glovo for 27 couriers

The Faro County Labor Court denied the existence of a contractual relationship between 27 couriers and the digital platform Glovo, rejecting the recognition of the employment contract, as requested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP).

The decision of the Faro District Court of April 5, to which Lusa had access this Monday, refuses to recognize the employment relationship requested by the deputy, arguing that the conditions required by the Labor Code are not respected.

The decision begins by excluding six applicants from the claim brought by the deputy from the right to apply to their case the latest changes to the Labor Code, which came into force on May 1, 2023, which cover specific assumptions for digital platforms.

This is because the court found that these six couriers began working for Glovo before the effective date of the new legislation.

The working decision of Portimão also found proven a “set of elements” that “indicate the absence of a relationship of a subordinate nature” between the couriers and the company.

Judge Filipe Aveiro Marques did not find it proven that the company had fixed prices, arguing that couriers could refuse to provide a service even because they did not agree with the price, which the court understood was presented as an offer. not an imposition, and the courier also has the opportunity to change the price on the platform to a more favorable price for him.

The court also understands that the platform does not impose rules on couriers regarding how they provide services, does not control the provision of activities, does not impose working hours and does not allow couriers to work on other platforms, and found this unacceptable. work tools such as cell phones, insulated backpacks and vehicles have been proven to belong to the company.

The decision acknowledges the existence of “certain elements that may indicate that the couriers are integrated into a third-party production organization, that the fruits of their activities do not initially belong to them but rather to that production organization, and that they themselves do not have their own business organization,” but argues that that “this argument, however, is not very compelling.”

“Even in the case of musicians who are members of an orchestra—and there are few other human activities that must be so finely orchestrated to maintain ensemble harmony—no legal subordination was recognized.”

“In the opposite sense,” the court points out as proven the existence of a tax regime for service providers “different from the regime for dependent workers,” the lack of exclusivity, and the ability of couriers to determine their schedule and place of work. , as well as the right to subcontract with the supplier to replace them.

In a conversation with Lusa, Glovo said that the Portimão court “correctly assessed” in deciding that its operating model “as a technological intermediation platform” does not have characteristics “that could lead to the presumption of the existence of an employment contract.”

“This proposal confirms what we have always defended: the separate operating model of the Glovo app meets the criteria established by law. Couriers who choose to connect to the app are independent workers who freely choose what services to provide and to whom, as well as the place, form and moment when they intend to do so,” Glovo said, adding that “it was optimistic that other sentences will have the same result.”

At the beginning of February, in an unprecedented decision in Portugal, the District Court of Lisbon recognized for the first time the existence of an employment contract between a courier and Uber Eats Portugal, a home delivery platform competing with Glovo, after an action was brought by a deputy for this purpose and after a review by the Office on working conditions (ACT).

Then the Lisbon court gave this case an interpretation that was almost completely different from what is now decided in the Glovo case, considering that there is control over the activities of the provider by the platform, restrictions on the refusal and acceptance of services. and establishing courier remuneration, concluding that Uber Eats Portugal “is not a mere intermediary of service contracts between businesses and couriers.”