Description
The Portuguese Public Prosecutor's Office took legal action against Glovoapp Portugal, arguing that one of its couriers should be recognised as an employee. While the first instance court and the Lisbon Court of Appeal agreed that legal indicators pointing to an employment relationship were present, they ultimately ruled that Glovo had provided enough evidence to overcome this presumption.
The Public Prosecutor's Office appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Justice (Supremo Tribunal de Justiça). The central dispute for the Supreme Court was to determine if Glovo had successfully rebutted the legal presumption of an employment relationship established in the Portuguese Labour Code, or if the courier should, in fact, be classified as an employee.
The Supreme Court found that the courier was an employee, highlighting multiple factors that aligned with the traditional functions of management:
- Organising: The court noted a "strong integration of the courier into the algorithmic organisation" of Glovo. The platform and its app, which are owned and managed by Glovo, were described as the "essential instruments of work" for the courier, performing the organising function of matching clients with workers.
- Directing and Leading: The court upheld the lower courts' finding that Glovo "exercises the power of direction and determines specific rules" regarding the courier's conduct and the performance of the activity. This was seen in the pre-defined terms and conditions and the specific procedures the courier had to follow (e.g., waiting 10 minutes for an absent client and reporting it via the app).
- Controlling: The court emphasised that Glovo "controls and supervises the performance of the activity, including in real time... through electronic means or of algorithmic management". This was evidenced by:
- The use of geolocation (GPS) to track the courier's location, which was "indispensable to the exercise of the activity".
- The monitoring of delivery times and routes.
- A customer rating system ("sistema de reputação") to verify the quality of the work.
- The ability to suspend or deactivate the courier's account, which the court classified as a form of disciplinary power.
The court downplayed factors that suggested autonomy, such as the courier paying a fee to use the platform. It stated that such contractual clauses are often used to disguise what is truly a dependent employment relationship, the very "scourge" the law was designed to combat.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the courier. It granted the appeal ("Concedida a Revista"), overturning the previous rulings of the lower courts and declaring that an employment contract existed between the courier and Glovo. This is the highest court in the Portuguese judicial system for this type of case, hearing an appeal on points of law (a "Revista"). The decision was unanimous.
- Keywords
-
employment status
- Actors
-
Platform,
Court
- Sector
-
Transportation and storage
- Platforms
-
Glovo
Sources