FNV & CNV v Temper – Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 16 June 2026

Temper operates an online platform through which workers and businesses can find one another and enter into agreements for temporary assignments.

Temper presents the workers using the platform as independent entrepreneurs rather than employees. Workers can view available assignments through the platform and businesses can select workers to perform those assignments.

The trade unions FNV and CNV challenged this model. They argued that Temper did not merely operate as a neutral intermediary between independent contractors and clients, but functioned in such a way that the workers should legally be regarded as temporary agency workers employed by Temper.

In proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court, FNV and CNV therefore sought a declaration that the relationships between Temper and the workers qualified as temporary agency agreements.

On 10 July 2024, the Amsterdam District Court rejected that position. It concluded that no temporary agency agreement existed between Temper and the workers.

FNV and CNV appealed.

On 16 June 2026, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion and held that the workers using the Temper platform were temporary agency workers.

The central question before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal was whether the relationship between Temper and workers who obtain assignments through the platform qualifies as a temporary agency agreement within the meaning of Article 7:690 BW.

More specifically, the Court had to determine whether Temper should legally be regarded as the employer within the three-party structure, despite Temper's position that it merely facilitates agreements between independent workers and clients.

The question was therefore not simply whether the workers performed their activities under the supervision of the client at the workplace, but whether the complete structure of the relationship satisfied the requirements of temporary agency work.

The Court assessed the Temper relationship under the Dutch rules governing employment and temporary agency work.

Article 7:610 BW provides the general framework for determining whether a relationship constitutes an employment contract.

Article 7:690 BW provides the specific legal definition of a temporary agency agreement. In such a relationship, the employee is made available by their employer to a third party, pursuant to an assignment given to the employer, in order to perform work under the supervision and direction of that third party.

The existence of a digital platform or contractual description of the workers as independent contractors does not automatically determine the legal classification.

The relationship must instead be assessed on the basis of its actual structure and the respective roles of the parties.

The broader Dutch worker-classification framework developed in the Deliveroo judgment is also relevant to this assessment. The circumstances of the working relationship must be considered together rather than allowing one contractual characteristic to determine the outcome

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal reassessed the operation of the Temper platform and reached a different conclusion from the District Court.

The District Court had placed significant weight on circumstances pointing away from Temper being the employer, including the role of the client in directing the work, the payment structure and the workers' freedom in relation to assignments.

The Court of Appeal considered the relationship more broadly and concluded that the role played by Temper within the overall structure was sufficient for the relationship to qualify as temporary agency work.

Temper was not merely an external party with no involvement once a worker and client found each other. The platform formed the infrastructure through which the working relationship was established and organised.

The Court therefore examined the relationship between the worker and Temper as part of the wider three-party arrangement involving the client.

The workers ultimately performed work for the businesses using the platform, while the relationship through which they were made available for that work was organised through Temper.

On the basis of the circumstances considered together, the Court concluded that the legal requirements for a temporary agency agreement were satisfied.

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal reversed the Amsterdam District Court's conclusion.

It held that the workers who enter into assignments with clients through the Temper platform have a temporary agency relationship with Temper.

The relationship therefore qualifies as a temporary agency agreement within the meaning of Article 7:690 BW.

This means that the Court rejected the position that the workers could, for the purposes of the relationship examined in the case, simply be treated as independent contractors connected to clients through a neutral intermediary.

The Court of Appeal judgment replaced the contrary conclusion reached by the Amsterdam District Court in its judgment of 10 July 2024.

The 2026 Temper judgment is particularly significant for the classification of digital labour platforms that operate as intermediaries between workers and third-party clients.

The case differs from a traditional two-party classification dispute because the workers do not perform their activities directly within Temper's own business premises. Instead, they perform assignments for separate businesses using the platform.

The decision shows that this does not prevent the platform itself from occupying the legal position of employer.

The case therefore highlights the importance of analysing the entire three-party structure when assessing platform work.

For classification purposes, relevant questions include:

1. What role does the platform play in establishing the relationship between the worker and the client?

2. How are assignments made available and concluded?

3. What contractual framework is imposed or facilitated by the platform?

4. Which party makes the worker available to the business where the work is performed?

5. Who exercises supervision and direction during the actual assignment?

6. What role does the platform continue to play once the worker and client have been connected?

The judgment is also important when compared with the 2024 District Court decision. The two courts examined substantially the same platform model but reached different legal conclusions concerning Temper's role.

This demonstrates that individual elements such as freedom to select assignments, payment arrangements or workplace supervision should not necessarily be considered in isolation. Their significance depends on the legal structure as a whole.