Supermarket letter – 23

By Published On: 17-05-2018Categories: label11, SupermarketsTags:

                                                                  SUPERMARKET NEWSLETTER NO. 23

 

1. AH may not reduce wages when taking over personnel from AH franchisees;

2. Unjustified statements by FNV about wages and rickety seats of AH franchisee;   

3. Albert Heijn liable for a slippery floor.

In a case from FNV against Albert Heijn about employees whose wages at a franchisee were higher than the collective labor agreement wages, the question was whether Albert Heijn could reduce wages if it had taken over the franchisee’s shop.

 

Click here for the entire article.

  

Other messages

Article Mr. C. Damen – “When does the obligation to provide proof apply for the submission of the franchise agreement?” dated August 17, 2020

Does the obligation to produce information apply to showing a (franchise) agreement in proceedings if the parties to the proceedings do not have a legal relationship to the (franchise) agreement?

By mr. C. Damen|17-08-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Information obligations of the intended franchisee under the Franchise Act” – dated August 7, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

Although the purpose of the Franchise Act is to protect franchisees against franchisors, a number of obligations have also been laid down for franchisees.

Contractual dissolution requirements not observed? No legal dissolution of the franchise agreement – dated July 23, 2020 – mr. C. Damen

Can a franchisor terminate the franchise agreement if it has failed to comply with its own contractual requirements?

By mr. C. Damen|23-07-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|
Go to Top