FNV & CNV v Temper – Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 16.06.2026 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:1612
Gepubliceerd op:
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.
1. Background and Appeal
Temper operates a digital platform through which businesses offer temporary assignments and workers apply to perform them. The work commonly includes activities in hospitality, retail and logistics.
Temper described the workers as independent entrepreneurs and presented itself as a platform facilitating agreements between workers and clients.
FNV and CNV argued that Temper effectively supplied workers to clients and should be treated as their temporary-employment agency. The Amsterdam District Court rejected that argument in 2024, after which the trade unions appealed.
Toelichting
The case concerned whether Temper was simply an online marketplace for freelancers or legally operated as a temporary-employment agency. The District Court initially ruled in Temper’s favour. The Court of Appeal reconsidered the complete platform structure and reached the opposite conclusion.
2. Temporary-Agency Legal Framework
Article 7:690 BW concerns an employment contract under which an employer makes a worker available to a third party, as part of its business, to perform work under that third party’s supervision and direction.
The Court also applied the Deliveroo framework. This requires all circumstances to be considered together, including personal performance, remuneration, authority, organisational integration, commercial risk and genuine entrepreneurship.
Toelichting
In temporary-agency work, the formal employer and the business directing the daily work are different parties. The fact that Temper’s clients supervised individual shifts therefore did not prevent Temper from being the workers’ employer.
3. Temper’s Role and the Workers’ Position
The Court found that Temper was closely involved in establishing and organising the working relationship. Temper provided the user agreements, model assignment agreements and replacement arrangements used through the platform.
Temper controlled access to assignments, imposed platform and quality requirements, and could exclude workers from the platform. It also played an important role in the remuneration and payment structure. Although clients entered the hourly rate, Temper restricted rates below the minimum wage, displayed comparable regional rates and facilitated payment through Finqle.
The assignments formed part of the clients’ normal business activities. Clients determined working times and provided instructions during the assignments.
The Court also considered that workers generally performed assignments personally, bore limited commercial risk and showed insufficient substantive entrepreneurship. Formal registration with the Chamber of Commerce or for VAT did not outweigh the practical circumstances.
Toelichting
Temper did considerably more than publish available assignments. It created the contractual framework, controlled access to work and organised important parts of the payment process. The clients directed the work during each shift, but Temper established the system through which the workers were selected, supplied and governed.
4. Decision and Legal Significance
The Court of Appeal reversed the District Court and declared that the relationships between Temper and workers performing assignments through the platform qualified as temporary-agency agreements under Article 7:690 BW.
The Court also held that Temper had violated Article 9 Waadi between 1 January 2016 and 1 April 2019 by charging workers €1 for each hour worked in connection with its labour-supply activities.
Not every claim made by FNV and CNV was granted. In particular, claims seeking to establish the clients’ liability could not be awarded against clients who were not parties to the proceedings.
Toelichting
The Court classified Temper as the workers’ temporary-employment agency rather than as a neutral marketplace. The workers were therefore temporary-agency employees, not merely freelancers using a digital platform. The judgment also shows that a platform may breach labour-supply legislation when it charges workers for arranging access to assignments.
Tijdlijn
Collective proceedings initiated
Interim judgment
District Court judgment
Court of Appeal judgment
Bronnen
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI%3ANL%3AGHAMS%3A2026%3A1612
- https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/organisatie/gerechtshoven/gerechtshof-amsterdam/nieuws/2026/06/werkers-van-temper-zijn-uitzendkrachten
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI%3ANL%3ARBAMS%3A2024%3A3987
Gerelateerde kennis
Bekijk alle kennisYoungOnes Workers at H&M – Netherlands Labour Authority, 2024
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.
NV / 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.
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.