GIG ECONOMY LITIGATION DATABASE
Cáceres, Itatí Laura Lucía c/ Repartos Ya SA (2021)
Citation/case number: CNT 26535/2020
Country: Argentina
Year: 2021
Court: Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones del Trabajo
Status: Determined
Topic/theme: Employment relationship
Issue: Unfair dismissal; trade union rights
Claimant type: Individual
Respondent type: Corporation
Legislation considered: Ley de Contrato de Trabajo, nº 20744/1974, art 245; Ley de Asociaciones Sindicales, nº 23551/1988; Decreto nº 329/2020
Factual background and procedural history
The claimant commenced work as a delivery rider for Pedidos Ya, an online food delivery service operating across Latin America, in May 2020. She did so without having signed any formal contract or letter of offer, but simply by downloading the Pedidos Ya app and signing up to work particular shifts. In August 2020, her access to the platform was blocked, allegedly on the grounds that she had failed to deliver orders within the agreed time or to an adequate standard. At this time, an emergency decree was in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prohibited dismissals on the grounds of lack or reduction of work without just cause.
Prior to the deactivation of her account, the claimant was involved in trade union activity, and she alleged it was for this reason that her access was terminated. Specifically, she and other riders had formed a network known as La Red de Trabajadores Precarizados, which spoke publicly against the system of labour precariousness that gig workers operated within and intended to demand increases in delivery fees and improvements in the conditions under which delivery tasks were carried out. Days prior to the claimant's deactivation, the group had resolved to mobilise at the doors of the Ministry of Labour to demand labour recognition.
The claimant applied to the Labour Court for reinstatement of her account on the grounds that she was an employee of Repartos Ya, the company responsible for managing the Pedidos Ya platform, and her dismissal was unfair and prohibited by the emergency decree. She also sought an injunction mandating the recovery of her account, to enable her to continue working while her substantive claim was heard. The Labour Court granted an injunction, ordering that the claimant's access to the platform be restored until the emergency decree lapsed. Both the claimant and Repartos Ya appealed against the injunction to the Labour Appeals Court. Repartos Ya contended that no injunction should have been granted, while the claimant argued that the injunction should remain until the resolution of her case, rather than the lapsing of the emergency decree.
Key issues for determination
(1) Was the Labour Court justified in granting an injunction requiring that the claimant's access to the Pedidos Ya platform be restored and she be permitted to resume work?; and (2) if yes, should the injunction be granted until the final determination of the claimant's case?
Finding
The majority of the court found that the lower court was justified in granting the injunction, as it was at least plausible that an employment relationship was in existence and that the termination of the claimant's access to the platform by Repartos Ya was done in violation of the emergency decree. However, the court emphasised that in upholding the injunction, it was not ruling on the merits of the case, that is, whether or not the claimant was an employee of Repartos Ya. It noted that an injunction did not require full and conclusive proof of the right invoked, simply that the existence of that right was at least plausible.
As to the term of the injunction, the majority concluded that the factual circumstances of the case and the likely delay in determining the case on its merits warranted the maintaining of the injunction until final judgment was issued.
Outcome
The injunction granted by the Labour Court was upheld, and orders were made for the claimant's access to the Pedidos Ya platform to be restored and that she be permitted to resume working as a rider until final judgment on her claims had been issued.
Link to judgment: Cáceres, Itatí Laura Lucía c/ Repartos Ya SA (Causa nº CNT 26535/2020)
Other relevant publications
