Categories: Insights, Case Law


27 May 2018

Riders are self-employed professionals

The Court of Turin, with judgement No. 778 dated 11 April 2018, rejected the appeal lodged by 6 riders against a well-known German food delivery company. In this case, the riders had opposed the company’s termination of the coordinated and continuous cooperation with them following their protests, dating back to 2016, to have a fairer remuneration and regulatory treatment, claiming the existence of a subordinate employment relationship. The riders claimed, in fact, that the company (i) gave them detailed “directives” concerning, among others, the time and the location of work, the verification of their presence at the starting locations, the obligation to deliver on time, and (ii) exercised power of control and supervision by monitoring their productivity. At the end of the proceedings, the Court found instead that they were not employees since “they were not obligated to perform the work and the employer was not obligated to receive their work“. According to the Court, this characteristic in the employment relationship is “in itself decisive for the purpose of excluding the applicants’ claim as to the managerial and organisational power of the employer because it is clear that, if the employer cannot demand from the worker the performance of the work, the employer cannot consequently exercise managerial and organisational power over them“. Among other things, from a practical review of the procedures governing the relationship, it emerged, in the opinion of the Court, that the riders, after confirming their availability, could revoke it, that is not show up to perform the work. And in such cases, no disciplinary penalties were imposed on them, which also excluded their submission to the disciplinary power of the alleged employer. Consequently, according to the Court of Turin, even the claims related to the voiding, ineffectiveness, and unlawfulness of the termination (rectius dismissal) and the other requests so related could not be accepted, with the consequent rejection of the appeal.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…