the owner-drivers contended that they were contracted to dpd as individual drivers and so were employees or at least workers (therefore providing them with certain employment protections). if the dpd owner-drivers were required to perform the services personally and could not send a substitute or could only send a substitute in very limited circumstances, this would point towards at least worker status. the original employment tribunal had held that the owner-drivers had an “unfettered right” to send a substitute in their place if they were unable to do the work themselves. the eat found that the franchise agreement reflected the true agreement between the parties and that dpd was entitled to require “drivers” to satisfy the above requirements.