On 16 June 2026, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal delivered an important judgment on the classification of working relationships within the platform economy (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:1612). The Court took a clear position, holding that individuals performing work through the Temper platform do so under a temporary agency work agreement. In doing so, it overturned the earlier judgment of the Amsterdam District Court, which had concluded that no temporary agency relationship existed. The ruling once again emphasises that, when classifying working relationships, it is the actual performance of the work—not the contractual label chosen by the parties—that is decisive.
Since 2016, Temper has operated an online platform that connects workers and businesses seeking short-term labour, particularly in the hospitality, logistics, and retail sectors. Both workers and clients enter into a user agreement with Temper. In addition, Temper provides model agreements, and in practice payments are almost always processed through the factoring company Finqle.
According to Temper, the workers are self-employed entrepreneurs who contract directly with clients. The Dutch trade unions FNV and CNV took a different view. They argued that the workers are falsely classified as self-employed and are, in reality, supplied by Temper to clients as temporary agency workers.
In assessing the legal nature of the working relationship, the Court of Appeal followed the Dutch Supreme Court's Deliveroo judgment, which requires all relevant circumstances to be considered in their entirety.
The Court found that Temper plays a far more active role than that of a neutral intermediary platform. Both workers and clients conclude user agreements with Temper. Temper provides model agreements and advises users not to deviate from them. It also facilitates invoicing and payments through the factoring company Finqle, influences pricing by setting minimum rates, provides a replacement agreement, and limits the number of hours that a worker may perform work for a particular client.
According to the Court, Temper is therefore closely involved in shaping the triangular relationship between the platform, the worker, and the client. Because of this extensive involvement, Temper cannot be regarded as merely an online marketplace or matching platform.
The Court further held that it had not been sufficiently disputed that the work performed through Temper forms part of the clients' ordinary business activities. Workers carry out regular tasks within the clients' organisations and receive instructions that do not materially differ from those given to the clients' own employees.
The Court therefore concluded that the arrangement constitutes a classic temporary agency work relationship: Temper supplies workers to clients to perform work under the clients' supervision and direction. While Temper retains formal responsibility for supplying the workers, the client's organisation exercises day-to-day management and gives operational instructions.
The fact that assignments are often of short duration does not alter that conclusion. Even a single assignment lasting only a few hours may qualify as a temporary agency work agreement.
The Court also found that the remaining circumstances did not support the conclusion that the workers were genuinely self-employed.
The possibility of arranging a replacement did not mean that the obligation to perform the work personally was absent. Replacements occurred only infrequently and, according to the Court, this was insufficient to conclude that workers did not consider themselves obliged to perform the work themselves.
Furthermore, the Court held that the workers bore little commercial risk because, in most cases, they sold their claims to payment to Finqle. As a result, they received payment immediately, subject to a 2.9% fee. The Court also considered it unlikely that workers made any substantial business investments, given the relatively low remuneration and the short periods during which they accepted assignments through the platform.
Nor did the possession of a VAT number or registration with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce demonstrate genuine entrepreneurship. The Court observed that, without further explanation, the average hourly rate appeared difficult to reconcile with running a profitable business, since a genuine entrepreneur must also bear various business costs and commercial risks.
The Temper judgment once again confirms that contractual labels are not decisive when determining the legal classification of a working relationship.
For platform companies and other organisations that engage self-employed workers, this judgment provides a strong reason to review their operating models carefully. Where a platform plays an active organisational role and effectively supplies workers to perform work under the supervision and direction of a client, the arrangement may well qualify as a temporary agency work agreement, with all the employment law and potentially tax consequences that follow.
Do you have any questions about the Temper judgment, the classification of working relationships, or the engagement of self-employed professionals and platform workers within your organisation? Please contact Eline Snijders, lawyer specialising in Employment Law and Employee Participation, or one of our other specialists.
Would you like to receive a monthly overview of our latest legal updates and blog articles? Subscribe to our newsletter.
.png&w=3840&q=75)