De Volkskrant Corrector – Amsterdam District Court, 6 February 2024 ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:685

On 14 March 2011, de Volkskrant and the corrector entered into an agreement entitled “Freelance-overeenkomst Overeenkomst van Opdracht”. Under the agreement, he performed proofreading and correction work for the newspaper.

His work consisted of identifying and correcting language errors in journalistic texts before publication. The work was performed at de Volkskrant's premises. Texts requiring correction were provided by the editor on duty and collected again after correction for further processing in the production of the newspaper.

The relationship continued for more than twelve years. For approximately the first ten years, the corrector generally worked weekday evening shifts from 17:00 to 22:00. From 2020 onwards, he formed part of a pool with three other correctors and worked different afternoon and evening shifts. He worked on a regular basis, on average approximately three days or parts of days per week.

De Volkskrant provided facilities and materials necessary for the work, including correction materials, access to its equipment and a laptop on loan. When the corrector was ill or on holiday, replacement was normally arranged within the pool of correctors.

De Volkskrant terminated the relationship with effect from 1 September 2023 for organisational reasons. The corrector challenged the termination, arguing that the relationship had in reality been an employment contract and that the employment-law rules governing termination therefore applied.

The central legal question was whether the relationship between the corrector and de Volkskrant was genuinely an agreement for independent services, as stated in the written contract, or whether the factual and contractual circumstances meant that it qualified as an employment contract under Article 7:610 BW.

This question was also decisive for the legality of the termination.

If the relationship was an employment contract, de Volkskrant could not simply terminate it as an ordinary freelance assignment. The statutory rules governing termination of employment would apply.

The District Court applied the framework established by the Supreme Court in the Deliveroo judgment.

Under that framework, whether a relationship qualifies as employment depends on all relevant circumstances considered together.

Relevant circumstances include:

1. the nature and duration of the work;

2. how the work and working hours are determined;

3. the extent to which the work and worker are embedded in the organisation;

4. whether the worker must perform the work personally;

5. how the contractual arrangement was established;

6. how remuneration is determined and paid;

7. the amount of the remuneration;

8. whether the worker bears commercial risk; and

9. whether the worker behaves, or can behave, as an entrepreneur in economic activity.

No individual circumstance determines the classification by itself.

The Court considered the circumstances of the relationship together and found that they predominantly pointed towards an employment contract.

Nature and duration of the work

The corrector had worked for de Volkskrant on a regular basis since 2011.

This was not a short-term or isolated assignment. The relationship had continued for more than a decade, and the correction work formed part of the recurring production process of the newspaper.

Determination of work and working hours

Although the corrector had a certain degree of freedom concerning the substantive performance of his proofreading work, de Volkskrant largely determined the circumstances under which the work had to be performed.

The timing of the work was closely connected to the newspaper's publication deadlines. The Court considered it unlikely that, once scheduled for a shift, the corrector could simply postpone the work or decide not to perform it.

Organisational embedding

The work was structurally integrated into de Volkskrant's editorial and production process.

The corrector worked at the newspaper's premises, received texts from the editor on duty, used materials and equipment supplied by de Volkskrant and worked within a regular pool of correctors.

The long-term and regular nature of the work strengthened the conclusion that both the work and the worker were embedded in the organisation.

Personal performance and substitution

De Volkskrant argued that the corrector could arrange for another person to perform the work.

The Court found that this possibility had limited practical significance.

When the corrector was ill or unavailable, replacement was normally organised among the other correctors in the existing pool. The Court did not consider it credible that he had a genuine unrestricted ability to send an external replacement of his own choosing.

Remuneration

The Court considered the relatively limited level of remuneration to be another circumstance pointing towards employment.

The level of compensation did not demonstrate the type of commercial pricing normally associated with substantial independent entrepreneurial activity.

Entrepreneurship

The corrector's economic activities did not demonstrate substantial independent entrepreneurship.

The majority of his income came from his work for de Volkskrant, and his other activities were limited. The Court considered that his economic position showed little commercial drive or entrepreneurial independence.

The Amsterdam District Court concluded that the relationship between the corrector and de Volkskrant qualified as an employment contract rather than an agreement for services.

The fact that the written contract had been presented as a freelance agreement did not alter that classification.

Because the relationship was an employment contract, its termination could not be treated as the ordinary termination of a freelance assignment. The employment relationship had not been validly terminated in accordance with the applicable employment-law requirements.

The classification also meant that the corrector was entitled to claim salary from 1 September 2023 and other employment-related remuneration. The Court did not finally determine all of the financial and practical consequences in the same decision; the proceedings were held for eight weeks, until 2 April 2024, to allow the parties to discuss how the matter should be resolved.

The judgment is an important application of the Deliveroo framework outside the platform economy.

It demonstrates that false self-employment can arise in traditional professional and media-sector relationships where an individual has formally operated under a freelance contract for a long period.

The case particularly illustrates the importance of:

• the structural and long-term nature of the work;

• the employer's practical determination of working times;

• organisational embedding;

• the practical reality of substitution rights;

• the level of remuneration; and

• the extent to which the worker genuinely operates as an independent entrepreneur.

The case also shows that a worker may have substantial freedom in the substantive performance of professional work while still working within a relationship of authority for employment-law purposes.

Professional autonomy is therefore not the same as entrepreneurial independence.