The court of first instance will have to re-examine the case of the ride-hailing company "Bolt" drivers' complaint regarding the State Labor Inspectorate's (VDI) decision not to consider them Bolt employees has been finally decided by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (LVAT).
On May 14, the Supreme Administrative Court granted the request of Bolt employees to oblige the Regional Administrative Court to examine their claim against the inspectorate.
The Supreme Administrative Court disagreed with the decision of the first instance court that the case should be heard by a court of general jurisdiction, not an administrative court.
"The court of first instance unreasonably concluded that the applicants' complaint is subject to jurisdiction in a court of general jurisdiction," the Supreme Administrative Court stated.
Bolt drivers went to court after the Vilnius branch of the State Labor Inspectorate and the Chief State Labor Inspector refused to recognize that an employment relationship had been established between the drivers and the ride-hailing platform. The drivers asked the inspectorate to recognize that their work for Bolt had signs of illegal work and to impose a sanction on the company.
According to one of the authors of the complaint, driver Lina Butkutė, the passengers believe that the inspectorate examined their complaint incorrectly and should have rejected it.
"They (VDI – BNS) did not examine our complaint correctly. (…) We wrote down a number of points, but none of them were answered in a legally normal manner," L. Butkutė told BNS.
At that time, the VDI did not agree with this position of the taxi drivers' representatives.
"The fact that the VDI did not evaluate all complaints is just their unfounded assumption, which would likely be different if the decision had been made in their favor," the inspectorate said in a comment to BNS on Monday.
According to L. Butkutė, a group of Bolt platform drivers is asking that their activities be equated with employment relationships - the company does not ensure proper working conditions or protection, although it regulates their activities.
"We went to court to have it recognized as an employment relationship," said a representative for Bolt drivers.
According to her, Lithuanian citizens working as ride-hailing drivers are burdened by a heavy tax burden, as they have to pay it both to Bolt and the state, while drivers from third countries often work illegally and do not pay taxes.
"Bolt regulates everything. We started looking for justice because no one is defending us. Earnings are not increasing, and quality is deteriorating, because there are many people who have arrived (from third countries - BNS) and it is not clear how they work - they are working illegally, they are not paying taxes, and they are distorting competition," L. Butkutė explained to BNS.
"The taxes are really high, but the rates are not rising because there are so many foreigners working, for whom even 600 euros a month is a lot. And if an accident or something happens, you are alone outside." a soldier"Nobody cares," she said.
According to her, drivers demand to work under an employment contract, to be guaranteed their employee rights, and to have drivers checked.
According to the VDI, it did not identify all the elements of an employment contract.
"Submission to the company's internal procedures has not been established, since the individuals themselves have signed service contracts that discuss the procedure for providing services in detail, the individuals themselves decide how much and when they will work, they are not paid a salary, a work schedule is not drawn up, and the continuity of their activities depends solely on the individuals themselves," the inspectorate said in a comment to BNS.
The Regional Administrative Court explained that the dispute related to the decision of the VDI in a specific case regarding illegal work, and such inspectorate decisions must be appealed to the district court under the Code of Administrative Offenses.
In turn, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the VDI made its decisions in the course of an administrative procedure.
"The fact that disputes of this type have been heard in an administrative court is confirmed by the practice of the Supreme Administrative Court," the court stated.
Author Lukas Juozapaitis
Editor Roma Pakėnienė
[email protected], Business News Section
