NV / Helpling – Amsterdam District Court, 01.07.2019 ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:4546
Gepubliceerd op:
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.
1. Background and Legal Question
Helpling operated an online platform connecting private households with cleaners. Households selected a cleaner through the platform, while cleaners indicated their availability and selected an hourly rate within the platform’s limits.
Helpling established rules concerning bookings, cancellations, complaints, ratings and access to the platform. It also facilitated invoicing and payment and charged cleaners a commission of approximately 23% to 32%.
FNV argued that the cleaners were employed by Helpling or, alternatively, had temporary-agency agreements with it.
Toelichting
The Court had to decide whether Helpling was the cleaners’ employer, a temporary-employment agency or an intermediary connecting cleaners with private households.
2. No Employment Relationship with Helpling
Cleaners determined their availability and had freedom concerning how they performed the cleaning. The household selected the cleaner, paid for the work and could provide instructions about the domestic tasks.
Although Helpling controlled important platform processes, it did not directly supervise how the cleaners performed their work inside customers’ homes.
Toelichting
Helpling controlled the digital marketplace, but the household controlled the actual cleaning assignment. The District Court therefore did not consider Helpling the employer.
3. Household Employment and Waadi Intermediation
The Court held that the employment relationship existed between the cleaner and the private household. The household received the work, paid the cleaner and exercised authority over the cleaning activities.
That relationship fell under the special domestic-services regime applicable when a private individual engages someone to perform household work for a limited number of days per week.
Helpling was nevertheless more than a passive noticeboard. Its active role in connecting cleaners with households qualified as employment intermediation under the Waadi.
Toelichting
The household was treated as the cleaner’s employer, while Helpling was treated as the intermediary that helped establish that employment relationship.
4. Decision and Subsequent Reversal
The District Court concluded that:
no employment contract existed between Helpling and the cleaners;
no temporary-agency agreement existed between them;
the employment relationship existed between the cleaner and household; and
Helpling acted as an employment intermediary under the Waadi.
Helpling was ordered to stop charging cleaners commission from 1 August 2019, subject to a penalty of €2,500 per day for non-compliance.
This classification did not remain the final outcome. In 2021, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal held that cleaners had temporary-agency agreements with Helpling. In 2025, the Supreme Court allowed that classification to stand.
Toelichting
Helpling initially won the employment-status issue but lost the right to charge cleaners for finding work. The later courts went further and ultimately classified Helpling as the cleaners’ temporary-employment agency.
Tijdlijn
Amsterdam District Court
Commission prohibition takes effect
Amsterdam Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
Bronnen
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:2741&
- 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&
- https://www.hogeraad.nl/actueel/nieuwsoverzicht/2025/april/hoge-raad-gerechtshof-oordelen-schoonmakers-via-online-platform/?
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.
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.