The Taipei City National Food Delivery Industry Union fought for the labor rights of three delivery workers whose cooperation with Foodpanda was terminated. It filed a civil lawsuit on the grounds of confirming the existence of an employment relationship. It argued that although the delivery workers signed the contract, they were actually subject to the platform's management, assessment and order dispatching system, and should be classified as laborers. The Taipei District Court found that the three delivery workers were free to decide their online time, work area, and whether to accept orders. The two parties had no personality, economic or organizational affiliation. The two parties should be in a contracting relationship and an employment relationship did not exist. It ruled that the union lost the case. Can be appealed.
The judgment pointed out that the three delivery workers had joined the Foodpanda platform one after another in 2019, and were subsequently terminated by the company in 2022 on the grounds that "the quality of the contracted services continued to fail and the situation did not improve." After the three people further inquired about the reasons for their dismissal from the company, they failed to receive a positive response and were unable to obtain relief channels. The union also believed that Foodpanda violated the Labor Standards Act, so it filed a civil lawsuit on the grounds of confirming the existence of an employment relationship.
The union maintains that although food delivery workers nominally sign a contract with the platform, they must actually abide by the platform's specifications, accept orders, and score the system. Working hours and freedom of taking orders are governed by the platform's algorithm. They must complete the food pickup and delivery process in accordance with the platform's requirements. They have personality, economic, and organizational affiliations and should be protected by the Labor Standards Law.
Foodpanda maintains that delivery people can decide by themselves when to go online, how long to work, whether to take a break, and whether to take orders. The platform has no power to order delivery people to work online. Even if orders surge during peak hours, it cannot force delivery people to take orders. Foodpanda also pointed out that delivery workers can provide services for other platforms at the same time, and the platform cannot require priority in taking Foodpanda orders. The relationship between the two parties is obviously different from that of ordinary employers and workers.
Foodpanda believes that delivery workers do not receive a fixed base salary, but receive a lump sum for completing an order, which is a contracting model in which the results of labor are exchanged for remuneration. As for the platform's requirements to comply with regulations such as the use of insulated boxes, food hygiene, personal information protection, and campus meal delivery, it is mainly to comply with laws and regulations and food safety management needs, and is not the employer's command and supervision of labor.
The court pointed out that the contract signed between the three delivery workers and the platform did not stipulate fixed commuting times or working locations. The delivery workers can choose their own online time period, work area, delivery route and work progress. They can also take a break or go offline at any time after going online, with no limit on the number of times or duration.
As for the union's claim that there are systems such as scheduling, grouping, and forced extension of working hours, the court held that the relevant evidence was insufficient to prove that it was part of the contracts of the three delivery workers, nor that they would be punished if they did not go online according to the scheduled time. Therefore, it was difficult to recognize that the platform had the right to command and supervise the delivery workers under labor law.
The court also held that the online and offline status of delivery workers only means that they are in a state of being able to receive orders, which is different from ordinary workers clocking in and out, and the length of online time is not directly related to the calculation of remuneration; the platform does not limit the work area of delivery workers, and the navigation route is for reference only. Delivery workers are free to choose the delivery method, and they will not be punished if they refuse to take orders.
As for the union's claim that the platform manages delivery workers with service standards, it is mainly to comply with relevant laws and food safety management requirements, and is not an employer's order to manage workers. Therefore, it is not sufficient to determine that delivery workers have personality subordination.
The court stated that the platform does not have a promotion, demotion or personnel assessment system. Consumer evaluations only affect whether additional feedback rewards are obtained, which is different from the performance appraisal system of general corporate employees. Delivery workers are not included in Foodpanda's corporate organizational system, so they do not have organizational affiliation.
The judge finally determined that the relationship between the three deliverymen and Foodpanda lacked personality, economic and organizational affiliation, and the relationship between the two parties should be a contract rather than an employment relationship. Since the contract allows either party to terminate the cooperation, Foodpanda's notice of termination of the contract will take effect. Therefore, the union's claims to confirm the existence of the employment relationship, back wages and withdrawal of labor pensions are unfounded, and Foodpanda was ruled in favor of the lawsuit. The entire case remains open to appeal.
