Class action lawsuit against Skip the Dishes takes step in court

Spread the love

Class action lawsuit against Skip the Dishes reaches a milestone in court

Charleen Pokorki alleges that she should be considered an employee and not a contractor for several reasons: she was hired and trained by the company, she is not paid by clients and cannot solicit clients, and, finally, it cannot compete with Skip the Dishes or subcontract its work.

The class action lawsuit brought by a former Manitoba delivery girl against Skip the Dishes will continue to progress through the courts. The Court of King's Bench ruled on Monday that an amendment made to the agreement between the delivery people and the company shortly before the start of the lawsuit is invalid.

The action brought by Charleen Pokorki in 2018 argues that she should be considered an employee, not an entrepreneur.

Several days before she started her action, Skip the Dishes has changed the terms of its contract with delivery people. This contract stated that the drivers had to agree to participate in arbitration in the event of a dispute.

The lawyers for Skip the Dishes therefore asked the court to stay the proceedings because of this agreement, since it means, according to them, that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide the question. .

In his decision, Judge Gerald Chartier roundly dismissed the multinational. Not only was the original agreement between Skip the Dishes and Ms. Pokorki in effect at the time of the lawsuit, he says. And even if the new agreement were in effect, it would also be invalid, he points out.

Ms. Pokorki began making deliveries for Skip the Dishes in 2014. According to the contract she accepted at that time, the courts of Manitoba could be seized in the event of a dispute.

On July 4, 2018, she consulted a lawyer regarding this class action. On July 19, Skip the Dishes announced that a new delivery agreement will go into effect one week later, on July 26.

This new agreement indicated that any dispute must go to arbitration on an individual basis. Among other things, it prohibits drivers from participating in a class action or any other legal action.

On July 25, the lawsuit was filed by Ms. Pokorki's lawyers.

A few days later, she accepted the terms of this new agreement so that she could work, while sending an email to the company notifying them of her disagreement.

The new agreement between Skip the Dishes and its delivery people was not retroactive, according to Judge Chartier. Moreover, by accepting Ms. Pokorki's letter of disagreement, the company demonstrated that the relationship between it and the plaintiff was governed by the old agreement.

The judge made a point of pointing out that even if he were wrong with regard to the agreement that exists between the plaintiff and the defendant, the new agreement would be invalid, because it is lesional and without consideration.

A lesion, in matters of contract, is an injury suffered by a party to a contract.

The plaintiff was powerless to negotiate terms, writes Judge, there is a difference in sophistication between the two parties. I do not find the plaintiff to be particularly sophisticated. Like a growing number of people today, she worked two jobs to make ends meet.

Furthermore, the new agreement benefits the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff by retroactively depriving him of his right of access to the courts.

I disagree that binding arbitration constitutes consideration. The elimination of the right to sue is not an advantage for a party, just like the elimination of the right to participate in a class action, added Judge Chartier.

Previous Article
Next Article