Finnish Court’s Resolution Stating that Wolt Couriers Are Entrepreneurs is Getting Positive Attention in Estonia as Well

In the resolution, Hameenlinna Administrative Court evaluated the contracts between Wolt and the couriers through four characteristics related to the employment relationship valid in Finnish law. These characteristics were:

• agreement on the performance of work;
• compensation paid for work;
• doing work for the employer personally;
• supervision of work.

The Finnish court found that the first two characteristics were fulfilled, but the last two were not. For example, in the case of Finland, the recipient of the work did not have to do the work personally as specified in the third point, but they could delegate the work to their substitute or subcontractor. Regarding the fourth point, according to the court, the work was not performed under such conditions that the courier’s work should be considered as working under the management and supervision of the company. For example, the working hours are not defined and the courier is not obliged to accept the work. From this, the Finnish court concluded that Wolt’s couriers in Finland are entrepreneurs, not employees.

The situation is different in Estonia

Therefore, when asking whether the Finnish judgment could influence Estonian legal approaches, Finnish and Estonian law must be compared. Since a person working on the basis of an employment contract is guaranteed greater rights and better protection by law than people working on the basis of other contracts, similar disputes may also arise in Estonia. According to Estonian law, the characteristic features of employment relations are:

• doing work as a continuous process (employee and employer bind themselves to an employment contract and there is an expectation that the employee/job will exist for a longer period of time);
• the employee’s submission to the management and control of the employer;
• the person obliged to perform work is not largely independent in choosing the way, time and place of performing the work;
• payment of periodic remuneration for work (obligation arising from the law to pay wages at least once a month).

By checking these characteristics, it is possible to distinguish an employment contract from other contracts.

For example, it can very formally be concluded that couriers are obliged to follow the company’s rules when providing services (use a thermal bag with specific markings, check the person’s age when delivering age-restricted products, etc.), therefore, in the event of a dispute, it could be said that during the provision of courier services, the courier is subordinate to the company.

It can also be related to the way the work is done, i.e., following the procedural rules of the platform, the way the courier works is inevitably to a certain extent prescribed. At the same time, each situation and the exact content of the relationship must always be looked at separately and at the same time the overall picture must also be taken into account.

Unlike the Finnish resolution, delegation of work is apparently not allowed on Estonian platforms. In such case, problems could arise, for example, regarding the existence of a legal basis for employment. For platforms, it is allowed to delegate work in case of a business account, but not in case of a personal account.

It is known that couriers have the freedom to decide when and how much work to do. In case within a certain period norms are established (number of orders, certain rating, etc.), the fulfilment of which is mandatory for the continuation of the delivery of the courier’s service, it could be said that the time-independence of the courier is not fully guaranteed, and the management-control of the employer is also guaranteed here in volume norms or standards.

Couriers have less protection when working as an entrepreneur

The employment contract is characterized by a strong dependency relationship. If the employer can influence the employee very strongly, then the law must also protect the employee more. Thus, from the perspective of law, it is necessary to distinguish an employment contract from other contracts for the provision of services, because the parties, especially the employee, need special protection and specific regulation of the legal relationship. In the event of a dispute, the nature of the contractual relationship is evaluated by the labour dispute committee or the court. As of today, there is no labour dispute committee or court practice in Estonia that could give an exhaustive answer on this issue.

It is worth considering that based on the practice of the Supreme Court, the aim of the legislator has been to place a greater burden of proof on the alleged employer. Since distinguishing an employment contract from other contracts for the provision of services can be difficult, the law establishes a presumption for the protection of the employee, based on which a contract in which one person performs work for another is considered an employment contract until the contrary is proven.

This means that in case of a dispute, the alleged employer must in particular prove in the labour dispute committee or court that it is not an employment contract, that the employee was not subject to his management and control, and that he was largely independent in choosing the way, time, and place of work.

In conclusion, Finnish and Estonian labour law have different rules for assessing whether a contract is an employment contract or not, so the Finnish resolution will presumably not have an effect on the qualification of the relationship in Estonia. Until the long-discussed European Union directive regulating platform work has been adopted, the qualification of courier services will have to be set in the future by Estonian court practice.

By Kaisa-Maria Kubpart, Attorney, Lextal