Franchise Councils and Franchisee Associations: A Balancing

It is now good practice to structure the consultation between the franchisor and franchisees by establishing a franchise council or a franchisees’ association, especially in larger franchise organizations. Consultation on various practical issues, as well as in some cases on policy issues, can then take place centrally and efficiently. This also creates co-determination on the part of the franchisees. When the franchise council, or the board of the franchisees’ association, is democratically elected, this can make an important contribution to the absence of a so-called fictitious employment relationship, which has already been discussed earlier in this series.
In some franchise agreements, however, the authority of the consultative body goes very far. There are situations in which the consultative body acts, for example, as an intermediary in the transfer and sale of branches of franchisees.

It also happens that the consultative body is actively involved in the allocation of exclusive areas. In such situations, a limit comes into view. The larger franchise organizations in particular can make use of some exemptions from competition law under the so-called Block Exemption Regulation for vertical partnerships. They can do this on the basis of their verticality, which means that the franchisor and the franchisee are below each other in the supply chain. However, if the franchisees are given decision-making powers among themselves, for example by means of a franchise council, with regard to important elements of the franchise agreement, in particular competitively sensitive issues such as exclusive territories, then the cooperation takes on a horizontal character, i.e. a cooperation between parties that are side by side in the supply chain, which may lead to the exemptions referred to above no longer being applicable. Care must therefore be taken to ensure that franchise councils and franchisees’ associations guarantee structured and balanced consultation, but do not acquire too far-reaching decision-making power in the ins and outs of the franchise organization as such. Adequate franchise council regulations can prevent problems in that context. In these regulations, the powers of the franchise council must be clearly and clearly described, within the applicable competition law frameworks. This naturally also applies to the articles of association of a franchisees’ association, as well as the relevant provisions in the franchise agreement.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor

In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee

Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement

On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Go to Top