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

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”

Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial

The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?

On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee

The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts

A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017

On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Forecasts at startup franchise formula

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the

Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?

On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation

Go to Top