Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 5:21:40 GMT -5
Judicial file: Glovo riders are false self-employed workers. This is how the Supreme Court has settled the judicial battle, ruling in favor of the workers and ensuring that the delivery workers of the well-known application are employees and, therefore, are working as false self-employed workers . "The relationship between a delivery person (rider) and the Glovo company is of an employment nature ," the High Court states in a note. "It is a company that provides delivery and courier services, establishing the essential conditions for the provision of said service," he specifies. In this regard, the delivery company would not act as an intermediary in the contracting of services between businesses and delivery people , but rather as an integral part of the process and employer of the riders, according to the Supreme Court note.
The ruling, still being drafted, would thus culminate a long judicial dispute in which several lower courts have decided in favor of both parties without distinction. This specific trial is that of a Glovo Middle East Phone Number List delivery driver in Madrid who until now had lost his claim in both the first instance court and the autonomous Superior Court of Justice (TSJM), but who was nevertheless supported by rulings from other courts. superiors, such as that of Asturias, which has been used in the appeal to unify the doctrine.
Labor intercedes on behalf of the 'riders' and will draft a law to put an end to false self-employed workers The case of Isaac Cuende, the name of the delivery man, and the Madrid TSJ clearly illustrates the judicial battle that the courts have experienced in recent years, with opposing sentences, similar cases with different interpretations and always a question hovering around the courts: " Are they self-employed or salaried riders?" After the ruling of one of the Social sections of this autonomous superior court, the president of the chamber decided to send the following case to the plenary session so that all the magistrates could decide, thus avoiding a cataract of contradictory sentences within the same court. With the second review before the plenary session, the sentence of all the magistrates contradicted the first and ended up being imposed .