We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services.
Our privacy statement:
Below you can choose for which purposes you want to allow cookies on the website of De Clercq.
In a recently published ruling by the Rotterdam District Court, the question was whether there was an employment contract or a contract for services between a wholesale company in fruits and vegetables and a sales manager.
The parties had a collaboration of over 2.5 years and had signed multiple 'consulting agreements' during that period. After a dispute, the wholesale company decided to terminate the agreement. Interestingly, the wholesale company also issued a summary dismissal, in case there was an employment contract. The sales manager did not accept this and initiated a procedure claiming that the parties had entered into an employment contract. Spoiler alert: according to the Rotterdam District Court, there was no employment contract.
Assessment
The judge assesses whether the 'consulting agreement' between the parties should be classified as an employment contract or a contract for services. To determine whether there is an employment contract, it must be established what rights and obligations the parties have agreed upon. Subsequently, it must be examined whether these rights and obligations meet the legal definition of an employment contract. All circumstances, viewed in conjunction, are important for this. The judge particularly looks at the nine points mentioned by the Supreme Court in the Deliveroo judgment.
According to the judge, the following circumstances of the working relationship indicate an employment contract:
However, the judge also notes circumstances of the working relationship that indicate a contract for services:
Based on the above circumstances, the judge concludes that there is no employment contract. The wholesale company and the sales manager behaved more like a client and contractor than an employer and employee.
This ruling does not concern the enforcement by the Tax Authorities, which has been widely discussed, but a procedure initiated by the sales manager themselves. This was possible before January 1, 2025, and still is. Note: If there is an employment contract, the relevant employee can, in principle, claim employment conditions retroactively for up to 5 years.
Read the full ruling here.
For questions about false self-employment, you can contact Jaouad Seghrouchni, Employment and Employee Participation Attorney.
Would you like to receive a monthly overview of updates and blogs in your mailbox? Click here to subscribe to the newsletter!