The Ministry of Economic Affairs is gathering feedback on a draft law on platform work aimed at improving working conditions for couriers, ride-hailing drivers and others engaged in such work.

Mindaugas Liutvinskas, Wolt's head of public policy for the Baltics, said via Meta that a provision in the directive concerning employment relationships requires adjustment.

"Without additional context, the provision appears to suggest that platform work always presumes the existence of an employment contract when the work is paid," Liutvinskas noted. According to him, the paragraph in question should be worded so that the presumption of an employment contract applies to platform work only when the work is carried out under the management and control of a digital labor platform, as defined in the Employment Contracts Act.

The draft stipulates that algorithms may no longer make significant decisions related to account use; such decisions must be made by a human. Workers would also gain the right to request explanations and challenge decisions. Platforms would be prohibited from using devices and algorithms that analyze workers' emotions based on facial expressions or tone of voice.

Wolt disagrees with the draft's restrictions on the processing of personal data, which state that automated monitoring systems may not process personal data concerning a platform worker's emotional or psychological state, data related to private communications or collect personal data during periods when the individual is not providing platform work.

Liutvinskas said such data is essential to better ensure the safety of both customers and platform workers. According to Wolt's proposal, the draft should specify that this restriction does not prevent platforms from processing personal data in automated monitoring or decision-making systems when necessary to comply with orders from public authorities, prevent crime or conduct surveys directed at workers.

Wolt holds automated systems to be necessary

Wolt also points to a concern in the draft platform work law requiring continuous human oversight of automated monitoring and decision-making systems.

The company argues that the word "continuous" implies uninterrupted oversight and recommends replacing it with the concept of regular oversight, meaning supervision at defined intervals.

The draft also includes a provision addressing situations in which decisions made by an automated system violate a platform worker's rights. In such cases, the decision must be corrected immediately and if that is not possible, the damage must be compensated. The automated decision-making process must also be modified or discontinued to prevent similar situations.

Wolt opposes this provision, stating that modifying or discontinuing automated decision-making should only be required when it is proportionate to the violation.

"If the decision cannot be corrected, the platform compensates for the damage caused and takes measures to prevent such situations from recurring, including — if other measures have been exhausted — modifying the automated decision-making process or discontinuing its use," reads Wolt's proposed wording.

In addition, Wolt proposed that obligations related to algorithmic management should not apply in cases where compliance would breach trade secrets or, for example, the confidentiality of pricing or algorithmic pricing logic. The exception should also apply in situations where such obligations would undermine fraud prevention.

According to Wolt, the draft should also include a clause stating that if a platform pays social security or other insurance contributions on service fees earned by platform workers, this should not in itself create a presumption of an employment relationship.

Wolt is also seeking to remove several lines from a provision stating that if a platform worker turns to a labor dispute committee or court, claiming their relationship with the platform meets the criteria of an employment contract, it is sufficient for them to present factual circumstances.

The explanatory memorandum to the draft provides examples indicating an employment relationship, such as when the platform sets fees and prices, assigns tasks, uses location tracking and similar practices.

"All example lists are drafted in the style of 'circumstances indicating an employment relationship' and 'circumstances excluding an employment relationship,' whereas in practice these are usually mixed and the explanatory memorandum does not actually help to understand how to weigh them together," Liutvinskas said.

Wolt also suggested removing a clause requiring that platform workers must be able to understand whether their location is being tracked in real time, whether the speed of task performance is being measured and whether customer ratings are collected and analyzed automatically.

Furthermore, Wolt believes that the section describing measures to mitigate risks associated with automated monitoring should exclude a list of possible preventive measures, such as limiting work pace or changing rules to avoid workload accumulating within a short period.

The company also objects to a provision dealing with undue pressure on workers.

The text Wolt wants removed states that undue pressure includes, for example, automatically penalizing a worker for refusing tasks in a way that effectively forces them to work at the expense of rest or while experiencing significant fatigue.

Unions after greater rights for platform workers

The Estonian Trade Union Confederation also submitted its opinion on the draft to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Its chair, Kaia Vask, pointed out that although the draft includes mechanisms intended to ensure equal protection for platform workers operating through intermediaries and those with direct contractual relationships with platforms, the platform and the intermediary are jointly liable only in the absence of an agreement.

"Ensuring the rights of platform workers should not depend on how the platform and the intermediary have divided responsibility between themselves. Therefore, the law should clearly stipulate that, where necessary, a platform worker has the right to file a claim against both," Vask said.

The unions also want the provision concerning platform workers' health and safety to extend — at least with regard to reporting safety issues, violence and harassment — to all platform workers, not only those employed under an employment contract.

They further argue that the obligation to inform workers about the use of automated systems should apply to all workers, whereas the current wording limits this requirement to those with employment contracts.

Vask also noted that although the directive states that penalties must be effective and proportionate to the severity of the violation, the draft does not specify what those sanctions would be.

The Estonian Employers' Confederation said it supports implementing the platform work directive at a minimum level, in order to preserve flexibility in this type of work.

"We consider it important to avoid overregulation when transposing the directive and believe the draft should not impose stricter requirements than those set out in the directive," said the confederation's head, Hando Sutter.

At the same time, employers believe some provisions require clearer wording to ensure it is unambiguous that the existing legal framework for determining employment relationships will not change. The confederation also stressed that, when assessing the existence of an employment relationship, no single criterion or circumstance should be decisive; instead, all relevant factors must be evaluated as a whole.

Employers also argue that parts of the draft concerning algorithmic management should include exceptions. They noted that algorithmic management is necessary for platform companies to protect their operating conditions, for example by preventing the disclosure of confidential information. It also helps prevent fraud.

The Estonian Association of Information Technology and Telecommunications (ITL) likewise supports the goal of improving transparency in platform work and better protecting workers' rights, but emphasized that the regulation must be as clear as possible. In its view, several provisions in the draft require further clarification.

"Several provisions in the draft contain terminological and interpretative ambiguity, which may lead to differing application practices and increase the risk of legal disputes for all parties," said ITL CEO Doris Põld.

The association also believes the draft should more clearly define the protection of confidential information and clarify the extent to which platforms are responsible for the actions of intermediaries, as this remains unclear.

The draft also does not provide a clear answer regarding communication channels for platform workers, meaning it is unclear whether existing digital communication tools may be used or whether platforms must create separate technical solutions for communication.

The deadline for submitting feedback on the draft passed last Friday, although several public authorities have yet to submit their opinions.

The platform work directive must be transposed by December of this year.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!