Health and safety cannot be left to delivery riders
It is not the responsibility of cycle couriers to make such assessments, and the company must provide various items, ranging from water and mineral salts to heat-protective clothing
Key points
The prevention obligations incumbent upon the employer cannot be transferred toemployee’s self-assessment, nor can their fulfilment be left to the individual choice of the worker or entail costs to be borne by them. This is the central principle affirmed by the Court of Turin, Labour Division, in Order No. 20490/2026 of 4 August, issued in the context of interim proceedings under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure brought by a delivery rider who is a member of the Slang Usb trade union, against the company for which he carried out deliveries.
The delivery rider’s requests
The appellant began working as a self-employed delivery driver in 2019, but the Turin Court of Appeal subsequently found that there existed between the parties an employment relationship on a full-time, permanent basis. In accordance with the judgement, the delivery rider was taken on from 19 May 2026. The order, therefore, does not concern the safety obligations applicable to a self-employed delivery rider, but rather those incumbent upon the employer in relation to a delivery rider who has already been legally recognised as an employee.
The worker requested, as a matter of urgency, the implementation of a number of health and safety measures: the provision of protective clothing, against heat, smog and adverse weather conditions, water and mineral salts, a means of transport deemed more suitable, a first-aid kit, places of shelter and access to toilet facilities. He also questioned the suitability of the bicycle and rucksack used for deliveries and highlighted risks associated with handling loads, high temperatures and the way in which the work is carried out.
The judges’ stance
The Court first of all recognises the existence of periculum in mora with regard to the health risks associated with high temperatures, given the constitutionally protected nature of the right in question. It also refers to the order issued by the Piedmont Region on 29 May 2026, which prohibits, under certain conditions, outdoor work between 12.30 and 16.00 when the Worklimate map indicates a ‘high’ risk.
The key point of the reasoning concerns the organisational measures put in place by the company. The company highlighted, amongst other things, the possibility for the rider to stop work or refuse deliveries in the event of adverse weather conditions. According to the Court, such a right does not exhaust the employer’s obligations: prevention cannot be entirely left to the worker’s own judgement, and compliance with safety measures cannot be left to their individual choice. The judge also refers to Article 15(2) of Legislative Decree 81/2008, according to which health and safety measures must not entail financial burdens for workers.
