Worldwide Deliveries Expand from Berlin: Wolt Services
Wolt's Delivery Drama Unfolds at Berlin's Labor Court
The Finnish delivery service Wolt and its critics, ex-employees, supporters, unions, and union activists, scrap it out in the grand hall of Berlin's Labor Court. The burning question on everyone's mind: Does Wolt hold accountability for the shenanigans of its subcontracted ride-along pals?
The final word from the judge? Guilty...no, wait. Wolt is officially in the clear. The ex-bicycle courier sued Wolt, arguing her relationship wasn't with a subcontractor as claimed, but with the Finnish mothership. She alleged the bait-and-switch at an electronics store on Neukölln's Karl-Marx-Straße, where access to the Wolt app was granted and a mere formality in the shape of a written employment contract was promised – although she never received the paperwork or the full pay.
According to her lawyer, Martin Bechert, Wolt intentionally hides behind murky subcontractor structures to dodge wage debts. In the spring of 2023, the so-called riders shouted about the problem, exposing reports of 120 drivers being cheated out of a whopping 100,000 euros.
Wolt's lawyer, Nicolas Roggel, denies any affiliation with Mobile World GmbH – the electronics store's former operator. Instead, he insists an IMOQX GmbH served as the fleet partner who was the plaintiff's employer. Roggel asserts the right to issue instructions was entirely transferred to the fleet partner - a claim often disputed in the case of delivery service apps.
Bechert elaborates his stance: "We're in a pickle when we have to flesh out Wolt's internal affairs." Info often comes from whistleblowers, who aren't working to clock-in deadlines. In contrast to past similar cases, Bechert and his client flatly refuse a settlement. Wolt's lawyer Roggel doubles the proposed settlement offer to 2000 euros. However, Bechert and his client insist on a verdict.
The court's final decision? Rejected. The judge, Thomas Pahlen, shared his reasoning earlier: "Though the contract structures appear complex, we must base our decision on the evidence at hand" - in other words, tangible, legitimate evidence. And there wasn't enough to confirm a direct employment relationship with Wolt the court found.
What's missing, you ask? Info about the employment process. The court deemed it ambiguous, casting doubt on whether the ex-courier could assume the contract was with Wolt. The plaintiff's past direct employment by Wolt should have alerted her to the inconsistency with Mobile World GmbH, the court determined. Moreover, the court saw no systemic pattern of similar cases or subcontractors, making it difficult to infer widespread irregularities.
The disgruntled bicycle courier can challenge the decision at the Higher Labor Court. The delivery workforce protested outside with cries of "Pay the workers, Wolt!" pointing to unfavorable working conditions. A rally speaker branded the companies: "They rely on migrant labor to operate, yet cover themselves in legal violations." The speaker insisted politics and authorities hold the real responsibility.
Contextually, Wolt's terms of service absolve the company of legal responsibility for its subcontractors' misdemeanors, shifting liability solely to the contractors for product quality, safety, and related concerns[1]. This contractual stance is contested by former workers and union activists, with the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court ruling that Wolt couriers are employees, making Wolt their legal employer under Finnish law[2]. This ruling challenges Wolt's legal defenses built around the subcontracting model, as it appears the courts may now hold Wolt accountable for the wrongdoings of its couriers.
The court's ruling revealed a lack of clear evidence to establish a direct employment relationship between the ex-courier and Wolt, despite her past direct employment with the company.
Despite the ambiguity, the case highlights the ongoing debate about Wolt's accountability in the industry, finance, and business sectors, as previous rulings have classified Wolt couriers as employees under Finnish law.
