FNV / Helpling – Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 21 September 2021

Helpling operated an online platform connecting private households seeking domestic cleaning services with cleaners offering those services.

Cleaners and households created profiles through the platform. A household could select a cleaner, while cleaners could indicate their availability and determine their hourly rate within limits established by the platform.

The platform nevertheless played a substantial role in structuring the relationship. Payments had to be processed through a payment system selected by Helpling, households could arrange another cleaner through Helpling if their cleaner was unavailable, and they could switch cleaners using the platform.

FNV and an individual cleaner brought proceedings against Helpling concerning the legal status of the cleaners.

On 1 July 2019, the Amsterdam District Court held that there was no employment contract or temporary agency agreement between Helpling and the cleaner. Instead, it considered that an employment relationship existed between the cleaner and the household under the domestic-services regime, while Helpling acted as an employment intermediary.

Both FNV and the cleaner, as well as Helpling, appealed parts of that judgment.

On 21 September 2021, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion concerning the structure of the relationship.

The principal question was whether the contractual relationship between Helpling and the cleaners qualified as:

1. an ordinary employment contract under Article 7:610 BW;

2. a temporary agency agreement under Article 7:690 BW; or

3. merely an intermediary relationship, with the household itself acting as the cleaner's employer.

The Court therefore had to determine:

• whether a contractual relationship existed between Helpling and the cleaners;

• whether the cleaners performed work for remuneration;

• where employer authority was located;

• whether the workers were made available to households; and

• whether the work was performed under the household's supervision and direction.

The Court of Appeal found that most of the relevant circumstances pointed towards a contractual relationship between Helpling and the cleaner.

Several features were important.

Payment system

The household was required to make payment through a payment platform determined by Helpling.

Helpling therefore controlled the required payment infrastructure through which remuneration for the cleaning services was processed.

Replacement in case of illness or absence

If the cleaner was unavailable because of illness, the household could obtain another cleaner through Helpling.

Ability to change cleaner

The household could also use Helpling to switch from one cleaner to another.

Selection by the household

Some circumstances did point towards a direct contractual relationship between the household and cleaner.

In particular, the household selected the cleaner through the platform.

However, the Court considered those circumstances less significant than the factors pointing towards a contractual relationship between Helpling and the cleaner.

Having established a contractual relationship between Helpling and the cleaners, the Court considered what type of employment relationship it represented.

The Court concluded that it was not an ordinary employment contract but a temporary agency agreement.

Performance of work

The cleaners personally performed domestic cleaning services at the households.

Remuneration

The cleaners received remuneration for their work.

The amount paid by the household and received by the cleaner was largely determined by the household and cleaner themselves. Helpling had a more limited role in determining the level of remuneration.

Formal and practical authority

The households exercised the immediate supervision and direction over the actual cleaning.

They could tell cleaners what needed to be cleaned and how the household wanted the work carried out.

However, this did not prevent Helpling from being the employer.

The Court distinguished between the practical supervision exercised by the household and the broader formal role of Helpling within the employment relationship.

Making workers available to households

The cleaners were structurally made available through Helpling to perform work for households.

The household therefore occupied the role of hirer (inlener) within the temporary agency structure.

The combination of work, remuneration, employer authority and performance of work under the supervision and direction of the hirer satisfied the legal structure of a temporary agency agreement.

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal held that the relationship between Helpling and the cleaners qualified as a temporary agency agreement.

The households therefore acted as hirers, and no separate employment contract existed between the individual household and the cleaner.

This reversed the central classification reached by the Amsterdam District Court in 2019.

The classification as temporary agency work meant that the cleaners had employment-law rights against Helpling.

The official Court of Appeal explanation specifically identifies rights including:

• continued payment of wages during sickness; and

• entitlement to a statutory transition payment when the employment relationship is terminated in circumstances where such payment is due.

The Court also held that the Collective Labour Agreement for the Cleaning and Window Cleaning Industry did not apply because Helpling was classified as the temporary employment employer rather than as a cleaning company employing cleaners directly.

The judgment is significant because it addresses worker classification in a digital platform operating through a three-party structure.

The Court distinguished between:

• control over the contractual and organisational framework;

• formal employer authority; and

• practical supervision of the worker's day-to-day activities.

The fact that a platform does not directly supervise the physical work does not prevent it from being the employer where the legal structure is one of temporary agency work.

The judgment also demonstrates that a platform cannot necessarily be characterised merely as an intermediary because the end customer chooses the worker and provides daily instructions.

The complete contractual and factual structure must be examined.

Helpling brought cassation proceedings against the Court of Appeal judgment.

On 11 April 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court rejected the complaints directed against the Court of Appeal's classification of the relationship as temporary agency work. The Supreme Court also confirmed that a private household can act as the hirer in a temporary agency relationship; the hirer does not need to operate a business or profession. The Court of Appeal's temporary-agency classification therefore remained in place.