IWGB v CAC [2023] UKSC 43 for Deliveroo riders

What it is

Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and another [2023] UKSC 43 is the Supreme Court ruling that Deliveroo riders are not in an "employment relationship" for Article 11 trade union recognition rights. The case turned on one point: Deliveroo's Supplier Agreement gives riders a genuine, practical right to send someone else to do the job. Because personal service is not required, the Court said the workers-and-employers relationship needed for union recognition did not exist. Deliveroo still uses that ruling in 2025-26 whenever riders argue for holiday pay, minimum wage or collective bargaining rights.

How it applies to gig workers

If you ride for Deliveroo, the ruling is why you do not automatically get what Uber drivers got after Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5. The legal hook is the substitution clause. The Supreme Court looked at the Supplier Agreement, saw that riders can genuinely swap in a substitute rider without Deliveroo's approval on each job, and said that destroys the personal-service requirement most worker rights are built on. Deliveroo tightened the substitute rules on 17 October 2024, making the rider liable for the substitute's actions and pushing for all substitutes to be registered, which is both a control tightening and a defence of the model that won the case.

The ruling is narrow in two ways that riders should understand. First, it was about Article 11 union recognition, not about every possible right. Discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010, data rights under UK GDPR, and some detriment claims can still in theory be argued, though they are harder and more experimental than they are for Uber drivers. Second, the ruling rested on the facts of Deliveroo's contract at that time. If Deliveroo ever tightens substitution so far that it is no longer "genuine" in practice, the analysis could shift in a later case.

For now, Deliveroo's GMB agreement delivers collective bargaining benefits short of full worker status: £245 a week sick pay for two weeks, a £1,000 one-off grant for new parents, a revised slow-service policy that GMB claims cuts warnings by 80%, and a three-month internal window to submit termination reviews. Those are real, but they are contractual, not statutory. Riders terminated for alleged fraud or safety issues still face a one-off internal review with no real appeal, which is why IWGB keeps campaigning on deactivations across Deliveroo, Uber Eats, Just Eat and Stuart under the #ClappedAndScrapped banner.

What you should do about it

• Read your current Deliveroo Supplier Agreement in full, especially the substitution, termination and "slow service" clauses.
• If you use a substitute, register them properly and keep evidence of who rode each shift, because post-17 October 2024 you are liable for their actions.
• Join GMB if you want access to the Deliveroo collective bargaining channel and sick pay / new parent grant terms.
• If Deliveroo terminates your Supplier Agreement, request a manual review inside Rider Support and separately email GMB the full trail.
• Treat the three-months-minus-one-day ACAS clock as live if you might argue discrimination, trade union victimisation or detriment.

Last reviewed

19 April 2026

Internal links this page emits:

• Uber drivers won under Aslam
• worker vs self-employed status
• ACAS Early Conciliation for riders
• Deliveroo terminated me — what now
• three months minus one day rule

Primary source used:

• C:\Users\thest\Documents\GigKiln\Research\S3-rights\3.5-tribunal-rulings.md
• C:\Users\thest\Documents\GigKiln\Research\Gap\G1.2-deliveroo-appeal.md