Glovo: investigating judge rules there is no obligation to hire: ‘The Labour Court will decide’
Following the appointment of an administrator, in the wake of the investigation into digital labour trafficking, pay levels have improved. The Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office had sought to establish a relationship of subordination
A setback for the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Glovo legal case, which has been placed under special administration over allegations of digital labour exploitation: according to the Milan investigating judge, there is currently no obligation on the Spanish company to employ riders on permanent contracts. This matter, says the investigating magistrate, will be dealt with by the employment tribunal (on a case-by-case basis, of course).
The investigation coordinated by the Milanese public prosecutor Paolo Storari had brought to light a deeply entrenched system of exploitation, in which delivery riders were paid 2–3 euros per delivery, with no safeguards. The ‘restructuring’ process envisaged by the judicial administration – imposed by the court following the investigation – has led, since September, to an improvement in wages (14 euros per hour, with breaks recognised if they exceed 3 minutes). However, not everything has been resolved: the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which opposed the winding up of the judicial administration, maintains that a proper employment contract must also be put in place.
However, the investigating judge gave a different response: this matter must be dealt with by the Employment Tribunal. The Milan judge, Roberto Crepaldi, considers that he should rule only on the issue of remuneration sufficient to preclude the offence of illegal recruitment, and not on the nature of the contract.
The subject calls for ‘caution’ and a case-by-case analysis, given the economic and organisational impact on the company and on the workers themselves, who are obliged to perform their duties under much stricter conditions, for example in terms of working hours and working exclusively for a single client. ‘Further caution is warranted by the fact that even amongst the social partners – perhaps precisely because of the implications just highlighted – the issue of subordination is not treated in a uniform manner, and the market in this sector offers a variety of examples’, writes the judge.
According to Crepaldi, the interim measure ‘remains focused on verifying whether remuneration levels are sufficient to guarantee workers’ constitutional rights, an issue that is independent of the classification of the employment relationship itself, which may well be the subject of separate proceedings before the employment tribunal’.
