Important decision
The Supreme Administrative Court has definitively confirmed that some of Rohlik’s couriers worked in a shvarcsystem. The decision is not an attack on the platform economy, but a detailed lesson on where business cooperation ends and dependent work begins.
The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court in the Rohlik case is one of the most important judgments of recent years in the field of the shvarcsystem. Not because it brought a groundbreaking new definition of dependent work, but because it shows in extraordinary detail how the courts really think when assessing the relationship between a company and “external collaborators”.
The case did not involve a minor technicality. The Labour Inspectorate concluded that some of the couriers performed work that fulfilled all the characteristics of dependent work, even though it was formally set up as a self-employed business. This conclusion was upheld by the City Court and subsequently – after a procedural correction – by the Supreme Administrative Court.
It is important to emphasise that the courts did not assess the ‘platform economy’ as a whole, nor did they label food delivery as an activity that must always be carried out in an employment relationship. They were addressing the specific setup of the relationship between Rohlik and his couriers.
In particular, the evidence showed that:
In other words: Rohlik didn’t just manage the outcome (delivery of the purchase), but the process itself – how, when and where the order would be fulfilled.
The Supreme Administrative Court has repeatedly returned to one crucial criterion: whether the degree of management and control corresponds to or exceeds the normal commercial relationship.
It is typical in commercial cooperation that the client sets the objective and basic parameters, while the method of implementation is left to the supplier. In the present case, however, the courts concluded that Rohlik controlled not only the result but also the day-to-day performance of the work to an extent more characteristic of an employment relationship.
This conclusion was not based on a single feature, but on an overall assessment of the entire reality of the cooperation.
Rohlik argued that the contracts with the couriers allowed for the rejection of orders, the use of their own equipment or the involvement of substitutes. However, courts have repeatedly emphasized that it is not the text of the contract that is decisive, but how the relationship works in practice.
If certain options exist only ‘on paper’ without being actually used, they cannot be regarded as a sign of entrepreneurial autonomy. The same applies to economic dependence: the fact that a self-employed person can theoretically work for other clients does not mean that she is truly independent if one client is the dominant source of income.
A positive point of the decision is the clear rejection of the thesis that an entrepreneur must not outsource his core business. The Supreme Administrative Court explicitly accepted that even the core processes of a company can be outsourced – provided that it is not a disguised performance of dependent work.
This conclusion is particularly important in the context of the practice of some labour inspectorates, which have recently tended to blanketly question the outsourcing of “core business”.
The courts have not accepted the argument that the chosen model of cooperation is beneficial for both parties. Lower tax burdens or flexibility are not legally relevant if the characteristics of dependent work are met. The legal qualification of the relationship is not based on the subjective satisfaction of the parties, but on the objective circumstances of its performance.
The Rohlik case is valuable because it shows in a very graphic way how easily even a sophisticated contractual model can fall outside the law if a company starts to manage its “contractors” in the same way as employees.
It is also a warning against the false sense of security that a well-written contract will solve the problem. It won’t if the reality looks different.
Court decisions will not solve the problem of the scab system. Its root lies elsewhere – in the extreme difference between the taxation of the work of the employee and the self-employed. This difference creates a strong incentive to look for ‘grey areas’, whether on the part of companies or workers.
A long-term solution could be the introduction of an intermediate category of workers, typically self-employed workers economically dependent on one main client. These people would have basic employment protection and at the same time a tax burden that would not be as extreme as today.
Such a solution could reduce the pressure for repressive controls, bring legal certainty to companies and workers, and better reflect the realities of the modern economy – including digital platforms.
Our team of experienced attorneys will help you solve any legal issue. Within 24 hours we’ll evaluate your situation and suggest a step-by-step solution, including all costs. The price for this proposal is only CZK 690, and this is refunded to you when you order service from us.
In person and online. Just choose the appropriate service or opt for an independent consultation when you are unsure.
