020 7650 1200

Parcel delivery company DX faces legal action over employment status of its delivery drivers

Parcel, mail and logistics services company DX is facing legal action in relation to the employment status of its delivery drivers.

Posted on 07 March 2017

The legal action is being taken by law firm Leigh Day on behalf of the GMB union, which represents the 23 current and former DX drivers taking forward the claim.

The issues raised by the drivers have been submitted to ACAS early conciliation and if a satisfactory outcome is not reached the case will be submitted to the Employment Tribunal.

Currently DX does not provide its drivers with the rights normally afforded to workers, claiming instead that they are self-employed drivers.

The Drivers claim that they are workers and are therefore entitled to holiday pay and the national minimum wage. Drivers are required to be interviewed by a manager at DX, provide details of their employment history and experience and undergo training before beginning their role as a driver.

They are paid at a rate determined by DX, which is not usually negotiable, and their route is determined by DX. Drivers are obliged to accept whatever volume of parcels is given to them for delivery.

They cannot refuse to deliver items in their manifest. In addition, they will face financial penalties if they do not deliver parcels that cannot be located or are inadvertently left at the depot.

Michael Newman, partner in law firm Leigh Day’s employment team, said: “DX claim that their drivers are self-employed, however, their rate of pay and their routes are set by DX and they are required to abide by policies set by DX, including in relation to how parcels are delivered and the equipment used.

“Additionally, those lots of drivers are only paid for each parcel they deliver, and are not paid for the time that they spend at the depot preparing their deliveries, loading parcels and planning their routes.

“As we have seen in the case against Uber some employers are falsely classifying those that work for them as self-employed, and therefore not providing them with basic workers’ rights, despite exerting tight controls over how they carry out their work.”