New policy rules for assessing (fictitious) franchising employment

Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise attorney

Recently, the State Secretary for Finance clarified the assessment criteria for the franchisee’s independence. If this independence is at stake, there may be a so-called fictitious employment relationship. A disguised employer-employee relationship has arisen between the franchisor and the franchisee, as it were, with all the consequences that entails. The franchisor is obliged, whether or not with retroactive effect, to make a payment to the relevant administrative agency (UWV) and the Tax and Customs Administration, as if he were the employer. In concrete terms, this means that the franchisor must therefore pay social premiums and wage tax.

All this is of course not the intention of the franchise relationship and should therefore be avoided in the design and development of a franchise organization. A number of further policy rules have recently been issued for the assessment of whether or not independence is present. 

It is of eminent importance that the franchisee does not automatically have to fulfill the obligations under the franchise agreement independently; he can therefore have himself replaced or have the franchise agreement (partially) executed by various personnel. Of course, this does not mean that the franchisee cannot be held accountable by the franchisor for the obligations under the franchise agreement. It is only a matter of the fact that for the ins and outs of the franchisee’s business it is up to the franchisee whether he does this independently or has the work carried out in whole or in part by others. What about franchisees who have no staff at all? It is not said that there is a fictitious employment relationship if the franchisee has no employees. After all, due to the nature of the case it is impossible to call in personnel or to have them adequately replaced. In this context, it is important that the regional office of the implementing agency is consulted. A so-called Declaration of employment relationship is not necessarily sufficient in this case. Incidentally, more criteria are important for whether or not there is a fictitious employment relationship, such as the extent to which there is a relationship of authority or equality between the parties, and the manner in which the franchisee is remunerated. Ideally, he receives his income directly from various customers. However, this is different for some franchise constructions, for example when there is income generation by means of receiving commission. Which is paid by the franchisor to the franchisee. Incidentally, even then it is not said that there has to be a fictitious employment relationship. This depends on the other facts and assessment criteria. 

In summary, it is important that every franchise organization in the build-up and development phase ascertains the actual independent entrepreneurship of the franchisees. This determination can be made by both the franchisor and the franchisees themselves. In all cases it is very important that this takes place in a timely and clear manner. This is the best guarantee for preventing any temporary findings afterwards. 

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Article in Entrance: “Rentals”

“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”

No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising

On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.

Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor

On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.

Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?

On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores

Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed

On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee

Go to Top