21/ Underhill LJ accepted that other features of the Deliveroo riders' relationships might also point against them being in an employment relationship for A11 purposes, but he was reluctant to rule on them, limiting himself to personal service.
22/ Whilst open to the possibility that Uber would have provided a different domestic answer to the working relationship, Underhill LJ also wasn't prepared to go there either. The appeal was limited to A11 rights & the domestic answer shouldn't be considered by the back door. 
23/ Even were the CA wrong on A11's scope, it held it wouldn't necessarily follow that the A11 freedom entails the right of compulsory recognition. There would remain a question over whether denying access to compulsory collective bargaining fell within the margin of appreciation
24/ Coulson LJ wrote a short concurring judgment noting that, whilst counterintuitive, the result stemmed from the limits in this appeal, the CAC findings of fact, Good Shepherd, the ILO indicator re personal service & the irrelevance of Uber to A11 & to personal service.
25/ So there you have it. Hoist by a genuine substitution clause. But before anyone gets too despondent, keep in mind that this decision doesn't impact the clean slate approach of Uber nor does it provide answers on the prominence to be given to substitution clauses post-Uber.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
