FNV / Helpling – Amsterdam District Court, 1 July 2019 ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:4546

Helpling operated an online platform through which private households could find cleaners to perform domestic cleaning work. Both cleaners and customers created profiles on the platform, after which customers could select cleaners for available assignments.

The cleaner involved in the proceedings registered with Helpling in March 2017. Between 8 March and 4 September 2017, she performed approximately 172 hours of cleaning work for customers obtained through the platform, equivalent to an average of approximately 6.7 hours per week.

Cleaners had significant freedom in organising their availability. They could enter their own schedules and determine their hourly rate within limits imposed by the platform. The customer ultimately selected which cleaner would perform the work.

Helpling nevertheless played an active role in the operation of the relationship. It established rules concerning the acceptance, modification and cancellation of assignments and the consequences of late cancellations. It also operated a ratings and complaints system and could temporarily suspend or block a cleaner's account.

Helpling also facilitated invoicing and payment and charged cleaners a commission for use of the platform. At the time of the proceedings, the commission charged to cleaners ranged from approximately 23% to 32%.

On 4 September 2017, the cleaner reported sick and asked Helpling whether she was entitled to continued payment during illness. Helpling maintained that she was not employed by Helpling and that the Regeling dienstverlening aan huis applied to her relationship with the private household.

FNV subsequently challenged the legal structure. It argued primarily that an employment relationship existed between Helpling and the cleaners and, alternatively, that the relationship constituted temporary agency work.

FNV's claims required the Court to consider several possible legal classifications.

The principal question was whether the relationship between Helpling and the cleaners constituted an employment contract under Article 7:610 BW.

Alternatively, FNV argued that the relationship qualified as a temporary agency agreement under Article 7:690 BW.

FNV also argued that Helpling was engaged in the supply or intermediation of labour within the meaning of the Wet allocatie arbeidskrachten door intermediairs (Waadi).

Finally, the Court had to determine the legal nature of the relationship between each cleaner and the private household for whom the cleaning work was actually performed.

The Court considered several legal regimes.

Article 7:610 BW – Employment Contract

An employment contract exists where a worker performs work for remuneration for a period of time in the service of another party.

The authority relationship was central to the dispute between Helpling and the cleaners.

Article 7:690 BW – Temporary Agency Agreement

A temporary agency agreement is a particular form of employment contract under which an employee is made available by their employer to a third party in order to perform work under that third party's supervision and direction.

An employment relationship between the worker and the agency must therefore first exist.

Wet allocatie arbeidskrachten door intermediairs – Waadi

The Waadi regulates, among other things, employment intermediation.

Where an intermediary helps a jobseeker obtain employment, the legislation restricts the intermediary from demanding payment from that worker for the intermediation service.

Regeling dienstverlening aan huis

The Court also considered the special Dutch regime applicable where a private individual employs someone to perform domestic services for a limited number of days per week.

The regime provides employment status but exempts the private household from several obligations normally associated with ordinary employers.

The Court concluded that Helpling played a significantly more active role than a purely passive online noticeboard.

Helpling established rules governing:

• acceptance of assignments;

• modification or cancellation of assignments;

• consequences of late changes or cancellations;

• customer reviews;

• handling of complaints; and

• suspension or blocking of cleaners' accounts.

However, the Court considered this involvement insufficient to establish an authority relationship between Helpling and the cleaner.

Freedom in performing the work

The cleaner retained substantial freedom concerning the actual performance of the cleaning work.

Cleaners could determine their own availability and had freedom concerning how the work was carried out. Customers, rather than Helpling, could give instructions concerning the domestic work itself.

Selection of cleaners

The customer chose the cleaner through the platform.

Helpling facilitated the process but did not itself assign a particular cleaner to perform a household's work.

Remuneration

Cleaners could determine their hourly rate within the range allowed by the platform.

The household was regarded as the party responsible for the cleaner's remuneration.

Platform controls

Helpling's ratings, complaint procedures, cancellation rules and ability to suspend accounts demonstrated that Helpling was actively involved in organising the platform.

The Court nevertheless considered these mechanisms primarily related to maintaining a functioning and reliable marketplace rather than giving Helpling authority to instruct cleaners on how to perform the cleaning itself.

Relationship with the household

The Court concluded that the employment relationship instead existed between the cleaner and the individual household.

The household paid the remuneration, exercised authority concerning the domestic cleaning and received the benefit of the work.

That employment relationship fell within the Regeling dienstverlening aan huis.

The Amsterdam District Court held that there was no employment contract between Helpling and the cleaners.

It also held that there was no temporary agency agreement between Helpling and the cleaners.

As a result, Helpling was not required on that basis to apply the Collective Labour Agreement for the Cleaning and Window Cleaning Industry or pay cleaners the same remuneration as workers covered by that collective agreement.

However, the Court rejected Helpling's argument that it was simply a passive online noticeboard.

Because of its active role in connecting cleaners with households, Helpling qualified as an employment intermediary within the meaning of the Waadi.

The Court therefore held that Helpling was not permitted to charge cleaners a financial fee for obtaining work through the platform.

At the time, cleaners were paying commissions of approximately 23% to 32%. Helpling was ordered to stop charging this commission from 1 August 2019, subject to a penalty of €2,500 per day for non-compliance.

The Court also found that the relationship between Helpling and the cleaner could be characterised as an agreement for services, reflecting Helpling's active role, although this did not provide the cleaner with additional employment rights against Helpling.

Finally, the Court held that an employment relationship existed between the cleaner and the private household under the Regeling dienstverlening aan huis.

The District Court's classification did not remain the final outcome of the Helpling litigation.

FNV and the cleaner appealed.

On 21 September 2021, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion. It held that there was a contractual relationship between Helpling and the cleaners and classified that relationship as a temporary agency agreement under Article 7:690 BW.

The Court of Appeal considered, among other circumstances, that payment was required to take place through a payment platform determined by Helpling, that households could obtain replacement cleaners through Helpling and that the overall contractual relationship pointed towards Helpling being the temporary employment agency. The household was treated as the hirer that exercised practical supervision and direction over the cleaning work.

The litigation eventually reached the Supreme Court.

On 11 April 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the challenges against the Court of Appeal's temporary-agency classification and allowed that judgment to stand. The Supreme Court specifically held that a private household can act as the hirer in a temporary agency relationship; the hirer does not have to exercise a profession or business.

The 2019 District Court judgment therefore remains significant as the first-instance approach, but its conclusion that no employment or temporary agency relationship existed with Helpling was later overturned.