ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION OF PLATFORM WORKERS ON THE EXAMPLE OF DELIVERY COMPANY IN SERBIA

Is it possible that one employer’s practice regarding algorithmic decision-making results in multiple discrimination? An interesting case from Serbia sheds light on the organization of the work of delivery persons through digital platforms and raises questions about how much it complies with the established standards of European Union countries.

Algorithmic management is a process of automated decision-making by the computer based on preset software (data) parameters.¹ In the field of labour, algorithms are used in employment procedures and profiling candidates, but also in the organization and optimization of work processes, monitoring employee performance, as well as in making simple decisions related to the exercise of certain employee rights. If the outcome of such management is a decision based on some parameter (personal characteristic) that is not relevant to the work process – we have a case of algorithmic discrimination at work, for which an employer is responsible.² Algorithmic discrimination at work was initially related to the work of so-called “platform workers” and the subsequent automation of decision-making about workers’ rights. This type of discrimination was recognized in courts’ practice all over the world, among which few landmark cases stand out in particular, such as Amazon case in the U.S.,³ the judgment of the Supreme Court of Spain in Glovo case⁴ which initiated the Royal Decree-Law 9/2021 (so-called “Raider’s Law”), and the Bologna Court ruling in Deliveroo case in 2020.⁵ 

The position and work of platform workers in the European Union is mostly rounded off by the Platform Workers Directive,⁶ which introduced a lot of novelties to this previously largely unregulated area of ​​labour law. One of them is the rule of transparency of algorithmic work management, but also the right of platform workers that human beings make final decisions related to the existence or exercise of rights based on labour, disciplinary sanctions, liability for damage and other situations in the work process. They review whether the decisions made by automatic data processing are in accordance with real facts, but also whether they correspond to the regulations of the specific state.

Nothing of the abovesaid works for Serbia. It is not a member of the European Union, but it also invested zero efforts to align its labour regulation with acquis communautaire. In the labour law and in the anti-discrimination law of Serbia, there is no mention of automatic data processing, algorithmic discrimination, or platform workers. This lack of recognition has led to many abuses, including the possibility of so-called “false self-employment”, so platforms treat workers as business partners, instead of assuming the role of an employer.⁷

In previous years, two more trends were noticeable when it comes to delivery platforms. One is related to the origin of the workforce – foreign workers are being hired en masse. After the complete liberalization of the labour market in relation to foreigners’ employment procedure in 2024, foreign workers filled the labour shortage in Serbia but also came to work in those businesses where the shortage did not exist. Another trend was the hiring of these workers through temporary employment agencies. In 2019, Serbia harmonized its legal framework with the Directive on temporary agency work,⁸ so it is possible to hire domestic or foreign workers through these types of agencies that act as formal employers, while factual employers have a very favourable status deprived of most of the responsibility for the treatment of assigned workers. However, temporary employment agencies are not mentioned in the amended Law on Employment of Foreigners – this was a serious omission that created a number of problems in practice. Using such a faulty legal framework, in many industries – including food delivery platforms – a three-way connection is created between temporary employment agencies, foreign workers and employers.

In such a legal environment, multiple algorithmic discrimination occurred regarding the actions of one food delivery platform. This case did not receive its institutional epilogue, so in this analysis the author’s opinion is expressed exclusively supported by facts reported in the media.⁹ In her research, Starčević also noticed similar statements by interviewed delivery workers in Serbia: “Another common complaint regarding the algorithms’ lack of neutrality is that participants view the algorithm as being set up to favour couriers who work through subcontractors over those who are self-employed. However, such claims remain in the realm of suspicion as food delivery couriers across the two countries lack evidence: “We can not prove it, because we don’t have access to it…maybe if we had a union, we could do it”.¹⁰

Based on the allegations of workers who deliver for delivery company, as well as subsequent media writings, it was accused that the algorithm for assigning deliveries preferred delivery workers who are employed through temporary employment agencies, compared to other workers (who are mainly hired as “business partners”, i.e. self-employed persons, registered as a sole trader). Why would an algorithm have these settings? As the deliverers-entrepreneurs claimed, due to the fact that they were paid upon delivery and the workers who were hired through temporary employment agencies were hired with fixed wages. This fact led to the conclusion that workers through agencies are cheaper to hire because they are paid the same no matter how many deliveries they make (thus, a larger number of deliveries meant that each individual delivery was cheaper for the company itself), while the rest of the delivery workers were paid by performance, so each delivery was paid separately. Since the vast majority of workers coming from abroad are hired through temporary employment agencies, this practice led to potential indirect discrimination against domestic workers – foreign workers had an advantage when determining delivery priorities. There are no reliable data on how many domestic workers work through temporary employment agencies but their number is certainly very small, while practically all foreign workers work through such mechanism because it is a much simpler way of employment than opening a business for a foreign worker (although this is also allowed and there were examples of such engagement in other activities). Thus, the “business model” of hiring workers, which was apparently neutral, potentially led to indirect discrimination of domestic delivery drivers.

However, this was not the only problem with such algorithmic management. If there really were such priorities in distribution of deliveries, even if they did not happen exactly in the described way but the greater workload of delivery workers hired through temporary employment agencies is the result of some other circumstances, the fact was that foreign workers who work as delivery workers were also potentially discriminated against through such practice. Why? Because during one payment period (a month) they make a significantly larger number of deliveries than workers who are paid per delivery, thus violating the principle of “equal compensation for equal value of work” which is one of the basic principles of labour and anti-discrimination law. In the Labour Law of Serbia this principle is stated only in the part that refers to the wages of persons who are in an employment relationship,¹¹ but looking at its international legal significance and its foundation it can be concluded that it is as an inalienable part of the human right to work that is guaranteed to every person.¹² The specific work tasks are essentially identical for all workers, so they are consequently in comparable situations. The delivery is carried out in the same way for both types of workers. The same conditions are required for hiring workers for these jobs. They all receive delivery tasks in the same way, that is, they communicate with the platform in the same manner (over the same application). In carrying out the assigned task, they apply the same knowledge and skills and execute it in the same manner from the moment of receipt until the point of marking the delivery as completed. They use the same tools for work and are identically identified when it comes to work equipment and uniforms. The only thing that distinguishes them is the type of contract they have signed in order to carry out food delivery tasks. So, in the specific case it could be violated because the same work task (single delivery) was paid far less to workers who were hired through temporary employment agencies, compared to other workers. There is no reliable data on how much the exact difference is because as emphasized, this case did not receive a judicial epilogue, so these facts were not determined in the official procedure. Nevertheless, if there was an algorithmic predisposition to assign as many deliveries as possible to only one category of deliverers, it is clear that there must have been some disproportion in the payment of an individual work task in relation to the value of the work performed.

This led to a very specific situation where one employer, through the use of illegal preferences in assigning work tasks, simultaneously managed to potentially discriminate against two different groups of workers, in a different way and in relation to different personal characteristics. 

Bearing in mind the abovementioned insufficient legal framework, in the first years of doing business in Serbia delivery platforms were considered a relatively good employer, despite the use of “false self-employment” practices and a number of other omissions. In that period, the job of a delivery person was very attractive, especially to young people and those who were looking for a flexible way to earn extra money. Over time, however, the quality of workers’ rights has declined, and the existing shortcomings have come to the fore through negative practices and under the scrutiny of the public.¹³ This caused the inevitable migration of delivery workers to other businesses that offered greater earning opportunities and better treatment of workers, while delivery companies opted for the import of foreign workers but again avoiding appearing as employers and using deficiencies in the regulation of temporary employment agencies in relation to the employment of foreigners. Algorithmic discrimination, if it occurred in a previously described manner, is particularly distinguished due to the specificity of the case itself. Namely, it rarely happens that one way of acting discriminates against several categories of persons on different grounds. It had not been definitively established whether the algorithm of the company was really set to give an advantage in the presented way, because the procedures for judicial protection of workers were not initiated, as it happened many times before – while workers are disinterested in too long labour disputes with an uncertain ending, the support of the state is not only absent, but in many cases it is directed towards the employer and actively discourages workers from judicial protection of their rights. But the very fact that it is theoretically possible to carry out this type of discrimination against several completely separate groups of workers indicates the need to regulate a series of open issues that are not recognized in any way in Serbian legislation: platform work, algorithmic decision-making and algorithmic discrimination, employment of foreigners through temporary employment agencies. Until these issues are resolved by explicit legal provisions, one can only speculate about the extent of labour exploitation of platform workers, illegal practices and discriminatory treatment through non-transparent algorithmic decision-making.

1. Kuzminac M., Reljanović M., “New Actors or New Tools – Algorithms in Employment and Labour Relations”, Regional Law Review 2024, p. 252, doi: https://doi.org/10.56461/iup_rlrc.2024.5.ch20
2. Larsson S., White J.M., Bogusz C.I., “The Artificial Recruiter: Risks of Discrimination in Employers’ Use of AI and Automated Decision‐Making”, Social Inclusion 12/2024, https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v12.7471
3. See: Valera, I. “Discrimination in Algorithmic Decision Making”, in: Weber, U. (ed.), Fundamental Questions (2021), pp. 15-26, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748924869-15
4. Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Social, judgment 805/2020 of 25/09/2020.
5. Rider, così il diritto antidiscriminatorio tutela i lavoratori dall’algoritmo, https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2021/02/10/rider-cosi-il-diritto-antidiscriminatorio-tutela-i-lavoratori-dallalgoritmo/6090123/.
6. Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions in platform work, OJ L, 2024/2831, 11.11.2024.
7. Reljanović M., Misailović J., “Radnopravni položaj digitalnih radnika – iskustva evropskih zemalja”, Strani pravni život 3/2021, pp. 407-432, https://doi.org/10.5937/spz65-33727. On analysis of direct field experience, see: Starcevic, J. “Global capital in local context: Platform power and labour agency in food delivery in Croatia and Serbia”, Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 36(2025), pp. 167-178, https://doi.org/10.14288/workplace.v36i1.187149.
8. Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work, OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, pp. 9–14.
9. See: Domaći „protiv“ stranih radnika dostave: Šta muči koga, a šta kaže Wolt, https://n1info.rs/biznis/domaci-protiv-stranih-radnika-dostave-sta-muci-koga-a-sta-kaze-wolt/; Kompanija Wolt uvela diskriminatorna pravila za strane radnike, https://www.masina.rs/kompanija-wolt-uvela-diskriminatorna-pravila-za-strane-radnike/. More detailed legal analysis by the author (in Serbian): Reljanović M., Woltizacija radnika, https://pescanik.net/woltizacija-radnika/.
10. Starčević, op.cit. p. 172.
11. Article 104. of the Labour Law of Serbia (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 24/2005, 61/2005, 54/2009, 32/2013, 75/2014, 13/2017 – decision of the Constitutional Court, 113/2017, 95/2018 – authentic interpretation and 109/2025 – other law).
12. Reljanović M. et alia, Priručnik za primenu Međunarodnog pakta o ekonomskim, socijalnim i kulturnim pravima, Beograd, 2023.
13. Wolt was accused of discrimination and other bad practises on more than one occasion, always without any formal legal epilogue. See (in Serbian): Nezadovoljstvo dostavljača Wolta: Svi ih vide, a oni ne postoje, https://n1info.rs/biznis/nezadovoljstvo-dostavljaca-wolta-svi-ih-vide-a-oni-ne-postoje/; Oglas za posao za studente do 26 godina – diskriminacija, https://nova.rs/vesti/drustvo/oglas-za-posao-za-studente-do-26-godina-diskriminacija/; Ko dostavlja hranu u Srbiji: Rusi ne mogu, traži se jeftinija radna snaga, https://vreme.com/drustvo/ko-dostavlja-hranu-u-srbiji-rusi-ne-mogu-trazi-se-jeftinija-radna-snaga/.