Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Sandd Franchisees Association (VFS) is fighting in court
Rotterdam announces the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to de
post-merger between PostNL and Sandd. The VFS blames the
minister to have made a careless weighing of interests. The
The position of the nine franchisees is completely ignored
through and after her decision. “Where Secretary of State Keijzer with the
bill for the Franchise Franchisees Act against
wants to protect franchisors, she lets in Sandd’s franchisees
standing out in the cold”, said Mario de Koning of the VFS.
Initially, the proposed merger was prohibited by the Consumer Authority
and Markt because a monopolist would emerge on the postal market.
State Secretary Keijzer rejected that ban by using
Article 47 of the Competition Act. She did, however, attach some conditions
On. For example, the merger must not cause a shock effect in the postal market and must
transition gradually. In that regard, the eleven thousand
deliverers who are now employed by Sandd will be employed by PostNL and
in this way the ‘vulnerable in society’ are protected.
The nine franchisees, who own more than 20% of Sandd’s network
operate, however, fall by the wayside. In fact, Sandd is after one
blatant breach of contract without adequate compensation for her
franchisees. These SME companies employ 3,000 mail deliverers
with an OVO contract and employs four hundred and fifty employees. It
could result in them being without any form of transition compensation and
guidance are dismissed. The majority of the merger is due to the merger
these ‘forget’ people to be on the street on February 1 or March 1
2020. Finally, not PostNL NV but PostNL Holding BV appears to be the
acquiring party. This is contrary to Keijzer’s decision. PostNL
NV is supervised by DNB and AFM, while PostNL Holding BV is not.
What does the VFS want?
The VFS is challenging the decision as long as the following is not met
conditions.
1. The franchisees will be entitled to the transitional arrangement for a
shocks to the postal market.
2. In this transitional arrangement, the existing franchise contracts, which
not expire until three or four years from now. That is an alternative
the franchisees receive a market compensation.
3. This compensation includes an amount for the redundant employees
sufficient guidance and offer a transition payment.
4. In the spirit of the decision, PostNL/Sandd takes the interests into account
of the three thousand mail deliverers, just as was done with the
Sandd delivery drivers.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond?
Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.
Termination of franchise agreement in case of changes in leased retail space – September 27, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Termination of a franchise agreement in light of a substantial change in the leased retail space.
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “Distribution of (potential) customers prohibited?” – September 17, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Within many franchise organizations, agreements are made about the recruitment of (potential) customers in a certain area.
District protection no protection against termination due to urgent own use – dated September 17, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
As a landlord, can the franchisor terminate the lease for urgent own use, in the sense of district protection, while this would be excluded on the basis of the franchise agreement.
Unreasonable compensation at the end of the franchise agreement – dated September 17, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Some franchise agreements stipulate that the franchisee always owes the franchisor a minimum of a certain amount of costs upon termination of the franchise agreement.