FNV / Helpling – Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 21.09.2021 ECLI:NL:HR:2023:887
Gepubliceerd op:
Bijgewerkt op:
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal held that cleaners working for private households through Helpling had temporary-agency employment contracts with Helpling under Article 7:690 BW. Helpling exercised formal authority by establishing the contractual framework, controlling the payment process and organising access to the platform. The households exercised practical supervision and direction over the cleaning work. The judgment reversed the District Court’s conclusion that the households were the cleaners’ employers. In 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the temporary-agency classification to stand.
1. Background and Appeal
Helpling operated an online platform connecting private households with cleaners. Households selected cleaners through the platform, while cleaners indicated their availability and set an hourly rate within the permitted range.
Helpling established the platform’s general terms, facilitated the contractual relationship and required payments to be processed through a payment service selected by Helpling.
In 2019, the Amsterdam District Court held that the household was the cleaner’s employer and that Helpling acted only as an employment intermediary. FNV and an individual cleaner appealed this classification.
Toelichting
The Court of Appeal had to reconsider who the cleaners’ legal employer was: the private household receiving the cleaning services or Helpling, which created and operated the platform structure.
3. Work, Remuneration and Labour Supply
The cleaners personally performed paid work for the households. Payments were required to pass through a payment system selected by Helpling, allowing it to process the cleaner’s remuneration and collect its commission.
Helpling made cleaners available to households as part of its business. The household requested and received the cleaning work and acted as the hirer exercising supervision and direction.
The Court considered that a private household could qualify as a hirer under Article 7:690 BW. The provision does not require the hirer to operate a business.
Toelichting
Temporary-agency work does not have to involve a commercial client. A private household can also hire a worker supplied by an employment agency.
4. Decision and Legal Significance
The Court of Appeal held that the relationship between Helpling and the cleaners qualified as a temporary-agency agreement under Article 7:690 BW.
The households were the hirers, not the cleaners’ direct employers. Helpling occupied the position of temporary-employment agency and was subject to the employment-law and Waadi obligations connected with that role.
The Court did not classify Helpling as a cleaning company, meaning the Cleaning and Window Cleaning Industry Collective Agreement did not apply to Helpling on that basis.
Toelichting
Helpling was not merely a website connecting households and independent cleaners. It was legally the cleaners’ temporary-employment agency. The judgment shows that the formal employer does not need to supervise the worker’s daily tasks when that supervision is exercised by the client.
Tijdlijn
Amsterdam District Court judgment
Amsterdam Court of Appeal judgment
Supreme Court final judgment
Bronnen
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:2741&utm
- https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/organisatie/gerechtshoven/gerechtshof-amsterdam/nieuws/2021/09/schoonmakers-helpling-zijn-uitzendkrachten?
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:4546
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:543&u=
- https://www.hogeraad.nl/actueel/nieuwsoverzicht/2025/april/hoge-raad-gerechtshof-oordelen-schoonmakers-via-online-platform/?u
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.