FNV & CNV v Temper – Amsterdam District Court, 10.07.2024 ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:3987
Gepubliceerd op:
Bijgewerkt op:
The Amsterdam District Court held that workers obtaining assignments through Temper did not have temporary-agency employment contracts with the platform. According to the District Court, Temper facilitated agreements between workers and clients but did not itself fulfil the essential role of employer. Temper did not owe the workers’ remuneration, the clients directed their work, and the workers had substantial freedom to accept, cancel and arrange assignments. This conclusion is no longer the current outcome of the litigation. On 16 June 2026, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and held that the workers were temporary-agency workers employed by Temper.
1. Background and Legal Question
Temper operates an online platform through which workers can find temporary assignments offered by businesses. Workers choose whether to apply, and the client selects the person who will perform the assignment.
Temper presented the workers as independent contractors. It supplied the digital infrastructure, standard agreements and administrative framework, while the individual assignments were concluded between workers and clients.
FNV and CNV argued that this structure concealed temporary-agency employment. They asked the Court to declare that Temper was the workers’ employer under Articles 7:610 and 7:690 BW.
Toelichting
The dispute concerned whether Temper merely connected independent workers with clients or operated as a temporary-employment agency supplying its own employees.
2. Temper’s Role and Employer Functions
The clients selected the workers and directed their activities at the workplace. Temper established the platform rules and supplied standard contractual documents, but the District Court did not consider this sufficient to establish employer authority.
Workers invoiced the clients for completed assignments. Payments could be processed through the Finqle payment service, but the District Court found that Temper did not itself owe or pay the workers’ remuneration.
Toelichting
Temper organised the platform, but the clients chose the workers, directed their work and were responsible for paying them. The District Court therefore considered Temper an intermediary rather than the employer.
3. Freedom to Accept and Perform Assignments
Workers were free to decide whether to apply for available assignments. Clients then determined which applicant would receive the work.
Workers could cancel accepted assignments within the applicable cancellation period, and the contractual structure included possibilities for replacement. The District Court therefore found no sufficiently strong general obligation to personally perform work for Temper.
Toelichting
Workers were not continuously required to work for Temper. They could choose assignments and retained significant freedom before an assignment became final.
4. Decision, Reversal and Legal Significance
The District Court rejected the claims of FNV and CNV and held that the workers did not have temporary-agency employment contracts with Temper.
On 16 June 2026, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal reversed this conclusion. The Court of Appeal reassessed Temper’s complete role in organising the platform relationship and held that the workers qualified as temporary-agency workers.
Toelichting
Temper initially won before the District Court in 2024. That decision was later overturned, so it should not be presented as the current classification of Temper’s workers.
Tijdlijn
Collective action initiated
Interim judgment / admissibility
District Court judgment
Court of Appeal judgment
Bronnen
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI%3ANL%3ARBAMS%3A2024%3A3987
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI%3ANL%3ARBAMS%3A2022%3A4035
- 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
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.
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.