FNV v Deliveroo Netherlands B.V. – Amsterdam District Court, 15 January 2019
The Amsterdam District Court held that the legal relationship between Deliveroo and its meal-delivery riders continued to qualify as an employment contract under Article 7:610 BW, despite Deliveroo having replaced its employment contracts with “partner agreements” presented as contracts for services. The Court considered the relationship as a whole and found that the nature of the work and the parties' practical relationship had not changed sufficiently to remove the characteristics of employment. The riders' flexibility in deciding when to work, ability to reject orders and contractual substitution rights did not outweigh Deliveroo's continuing organisational control, its determination of remuneration, the riders' limited entrepreneurial independence and the fact that delivery work formed an essential part of Deliveroo's organisation.
Related knowledge
View all knowledgeMy new item
best items
New Knowledge Item
A short summary....
FNV / Helpling – Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 21 September 2021
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal held that cleaners working for private households through the Helpling platform had temporary agency agreements with Helpling within the meaning of Article 7:690 of the Dutch Civil Code. The Court rejected the earlier District Court conclusion that the employment relationship existed directly between the cleaner and the household. It found that the overall contractual structure pointed to a contractual relationship between Helpling and the cleaners, while the households acted as hirers that exercised day-to-day supervision and direction over the cleaning work. Helpling therefore occupied the position of temporary employment agency and employer.
FNV & CNV v Temper – Amsterdam District Court, 10 July 2024
The Amsterdam District Court held that workers who obtained assignments through the Temper platform did not have temporary agency agreements with Temper. Although Temper facilitated the relationship between workers and clients and provided the contractual framework through its platform, the Court considered that essential characteristics of an employment and temporary agency relationship were missing. In particular, Temper did not exercise sufficient formal employer authority, did not itself pay the workers' remuneration, and there was little or no obligation for workers to perform assignments personally. The judgment was later reversed by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 16 June 2026.