Transfer of business with ‘preferred supplier’ of franchisees
On 13 June 2017, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in interlocutory proceedings, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2144, on the question whether employees of a ‘preferred supplier’ of the franchisees designated by the franchisor have automatically become employees of the newly appointed ‘ preferred supplier’.
Shell has entered into franchise agreements with service station operators. This stipulates that the franchisees are obliged to purchase certain administrative services from a party designated by Shell, called Centric. Shell has also appointed another party, namely KPMG.
The employees of Centric, who performed the relevant administrative services for Shell franchisees, demanded that there be a transfer of undertaking, in the sense that the employees in question have now automatically become employees of KMPG under the law (section 7:662 ev BW).
The Court of Appeal ruled that the client has remained the same, the same clientele (the franchisees) are being served and the activities have been transferred without interruption from Centric to KPMG. However, the question is whether the identity of the “economic unit” concerned has been preserved. This is not the case if there is labour-intensive activity that does not involve the transfer of any significant assets. The Court of Appeal ruled that the mere digital access to Centric’s digital (transaction) systems by KPMG cannot be regarded as such an asset. The Court of Appeal concludes that there is no transfer of undertakings and that Centric’s employees have therefore not been employed by KPMG.
The question of whether there was a transfer of undertaking is important for the franchise relationship, because a transfer of undertaking from one ‘preferred supplier’ to another could conceivably have a cost-increasing effect, which could have repercussions on the franchisor and/or the franchisee. When a franchisor designates a new ‘preferred supplier’ for its franchisees, account must be taken of the possibility that there could be a transfer of business between the old and new ‘preferred supplier’. In addition, the question arises whether Article 2.3 sub g of the Dutch Franchise Code would simply allow the designation of a ‘preferred supplier’ here.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the
Article in Entrance: “Standing up”
“Can I fire an employee with immediate effect if he steals something trivial, such as food that has passed its expiration date?”
Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient
On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled