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
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
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
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?