The Insurance Court issued decisions on appeals concerning the insurance of food courier work

On 21.5.2024, the Insurance Court issued decisions on TVK's two decisions concerning the scope of application of the Workers' Compensation Act concerning food courier work.

On 23.6.2021, TVK issued three rulings on whether the Workers' Compensation Act applies to food delivery work carried out by a food courier. Of these, two decisions were referred to the Accident Appeal Board following a complaint filed by the platform company. On 9.6.2022, the Accident Appeal Board issued decisions rejecting the platform company's appeal and upholding TVK's decisions that the food transport work performed by food couriers for the platform company had been carried out in an employment relationship as referred to in the Workers' Compensation Act and the Employment Contracts Act.

The platform company appealed against the decisions issued by the Board of Appeal to the Insurance Court. With its decisions, the Insurance Court accepted the platform company's appeal and overturned the decisions of the Accident Appeal Board and TVK.

Unlike the Accident Appeal Board and TVK, the Insurance Court held that the food couriers had not worked in an employment relationship within the meaning of the Employment Contracts Act. In view of this, the Workers' Compensation Act could not be applied to food couriers, and the platform company had no insurance obligation under the Workers' Compensation Act.

According to the Workers' Compensation Act, employers are obliged to insure their employees against accidents at work and occupational diseases, and the Act applies to persons who work in an employment relationship referred to in the Employment Contracts Act. According to the Employment Contracts Act, the Act applies to a contract (employment contract) by which an employee or employees together as a work unite undertake personally to perform work on behalf of the employer under the employer's direction and supervision in return for wages or other consideration. All the above-mentioned characteristics of an employment relationship must be fulfilled for the work to be considered an employment relationship within the meaning of the Employment Contracts Act. If one of the individual characteristics of an employment relationship is not met, it is not an employment relationship. In this case, the Workers' Compensation Act is also not applied to the work.

As regards the characteristics of an employment relationship, the performance of work based on a contract and on behalf of the employer and in return for remuneration or other consideration were not in dispute.

Of the disputed criteria, the Insurance Court held that the criterion of personal commitment was not met. The Insurance Court based its view on the fact that in the agreement between the food courier and the platform company, the transfer of the assignment to a third party had been found to be permitted, and no conditions had been set for the use of a substitute or subcontractor. Nor had it appeared that the consent or consultation of the platform company had in practice been required for the transfer of individual transport tasks to a third party. In view of this, the Insurance Court found that the food courier was not contractually obliged to personally participate in the food transport work and could not be considered personally committed to doing the work.

The right to direct and supervise the work about the characteristic sign, the insurance court found that it was fulfilled. Taking into account the report on the contract and the working conditions of the food courier, the Insurance Court found that the platform company had given instructions to the food courier on how the work should be carried out, and the platform company also in practice determined through the platform where and when the work should be carried out and thus concretely managed the work of the food courier through the platform. In practice, the platform company had also used the application to supervise the work of the food courier, or at least it had the right to do so.

The Insurance Court did not make an overall assessment of the case because it did not consider it necessary when all the individual characteristics of an employment relationship were not met.

The vote was 12-2 (11-1 for the majority's reasoning). A minority rejected the platform company's complaint, considering that the food couriers had been employed based on the evidence presented in the case. All the characteristics of an employment relationship had been met, and the overall assessment also confirmed this interpretation.

The decisions of the Insurance court are final.

Related information:

Summary of the decision of the Insurance Court, in Työtapaturmatieto (only in Finnish)
Court case commentary published by the TVK, in Työtapaturmatieto (only in Finnish)
Expert ponders: How should recent food courier solutions be understood?, in Työtapaturmatieto (only in Finnish)

News previously published on our website on the topic:
4.7.2022 | Tamla issued decisions on 9.6.2022 on TVK's two decisions concerning the scope of application of the Act concerning food courier work

The text of this publication has been translated from Finnish into English using artificial intelligence.