YoungOnes Workers at H&M – Netherlands Labour Authority, 2024
Published on:
The Netherlands Labour Authority investigated retail workers who performed assignments at H&M through the YoungOnes platform under contracts describing them as independent contractors. According to FNV’s publication of the findings, the Authority concluded that the workers were not genuinely self-employed. H&M supervised and directed their work, while YoungOnes organised the contractual and administrative structure through which they were supplied to H&M. The relationship therefore displayed the characteristics of temporary-agency employment under Article 7:690 BW. YoungOnes disputed the assessment, arguing that workers could choose assignments, work for different clients and bear entrepreneurial risk. The Authority’s assessment is an administrative enforcement finding and should not be presented as a judicial ruling.
1. Background and Investigation
YoungOnes operated a digital platform through which individuals accepted retail assignments at H&M. The contracts presented the workers as independent contractors rather than employees.
FNV Naleving & Flex requested an investigation into whether this classification reflected the actual working relationship. The Netherlands Labour Authority investigated assignments performed in late 2022 and early 2023. FNV made the findings public in March 2024.
Explanation
The investigation concerned people who were formally freelancers but performed ordinary retail work in H&M stores through the YoungOnes platform. The central question was whether they genuinely worked independently or were effectively supplied to H&M as temporary workers.
2. Supervision and Direction by H&M
The workers performed retail activities alongside H&M employees and carried out substantially similar tasks. They received practical instructions from H&M store managers and had to follow the store’s working arrangements and clothing requirements.
H&M determined the workplace, supervised the assignments and approved the hours worked. The platform structure also allowed performance feedback and reports concerning individual workers.
Explanation
Although the workers accepted assignments through an app, H&M controlled how the work was performed inside its stores. The workers therefore operated as part of H&M’s retail organisation rather than as independent businesses delivering separate results.
3. YoungOnes’ Role in Supplying the Workers
YoungOnes did more than publish advertisements for available assignments. It provided the contractual framework, platform conditions, administrative support, invoicing and payment arrangements.
The platform also facilitated ratings, insurance arrangements and procedures concerning substitution and access to future assignments.
According to FNV’s account of the investigation, the Labour Authority considered YoungOnes to be supplying workers to H&M as part of its business activities.
Explanation
YoungOnes was not treated as a completely passive digital noticeboard. It organised the system through which workers were contracted, administered, paid and made available to H&M. This supported the view that YoungOnes functioned as a supplier of labour.
4. Dispute and Legal Significance
YoungOnes rejected the Labour Authority’s assessment. It argued that workers were free to accept or reject assignments, could work for multiple clients, issued invoices and bore risks associated with self-employment.
The matter subsequently led to parliamentary questions. In its response, the government explained the general enforcement and tax framework but did not disclose whether individual tax measures had been imposed.
The published material concerns an administrative investigation. It does not constitute a court judgment conclusively determining the legal status of every worker using YoungOnes.
Explanation
The Labour Authority and YoungOnes disagreed about whether the platform workers were employees or entrepreneurs. The finding is important evidence of enforcement risk, but it should not be described as a final judicial ruling.
Sources
- https://www.fnv.nl/nieuwsbericht/algemeen-nieuws/2024/03/ook-arbeidsinspectie-stelt-wie-via-youngones-bij-h
- https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/2024/06/18/beantwoording-vragen-over-schijnzelfstandigheid-bij-youngones
- https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kv-tk-2024Z07753
- https://www.flexnieuws.nl/2024/04/volgens-de-arbeidsinspectie-wijst-alles-op-platform-youngones-in-de-richting-van-een-arbeidsovereenkomst/
- https://www.flexnieuws.nl/2024/04/arbeidsinspectie-en-youngones-verschillen-duidelijk-van-mening-in-platformdiscussie/
- https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/#Boek7_Titeldeel10_Afdeling11_Artikel690
- https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0009616/
Related knowledge
View all knowledgeNV / Helpling – Amsterdam District Court, 01.07.2019 ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:4546
The Amsterdam District Court held that cleaners working through Helpling did not have employment contracts or temporary-agency agreements with the platform. The Court found that Helpling actively organised access to cleaning assignments but did not exercise sufficient authority over how the cleaning work was performed. Instead, the cleaners had employment relationships with the private households under the domestic-services regime. However, Helpling qualified as an employment intermediary under the Waadi. It was therefore prohibited from charging cleaners commission for helping them obtain work.
FNV & CNV v Temper – Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 16.06.2026 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:1612
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal held that workers who performed assignments through Temper had temporary-agency employment contracts with Temper under Article 7:690 BW. The Court found that Temper was more than a neutral digital marketplace. It organised the contractual structure, controlled access to assignments, influenced remuneration and payment, and established the rules governing the relationship. The clients exercised practical supervision during assignments, while Temper retained the formal employer role. The judgment reversed the Amsterdam District Court’s 2024 decision, which had concluded that no temporary-agency agreements existed.
Waadi – Allocation of Workers by Intermediaries
The Waadi regulates the supply of workers by intermediaries. It generally applies when a supplier makes individuals available to a client in return for payment and those individuals work under the client’s supervision and direction. The legislation contains obligations concerning supplier registration, working conditions, recruitment charges, restrictions on workers moving to clients and the use of supplied workers during strikes. Depending on the provision and the facts, obligations may apply to the supplier, the client or both.
Article 7:690 Dutch Civil Code – Temporary-Agency Employment Contract
Article 7:690 BW defines the temporary-agency employment contract as an employment contract in which an employer, acting as part of its profession or business, makes an employee available to a third party. The employee then works under the third party’s supervision and direction pursuant to an assignment between the employer and that third party. The provision creates a three-party relationship involving the temporary worker, the employment agency or other supplier, and the client where the work is performed. The supplier remains the legal employer even though the client directs the daily work.