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 .
![214signature-min](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/214signature-min.jpg)
Other messages
Infringement of franchisee’s exclusivity rights: franchisor liable
Franchise agreements often contain exclusivity provisions that give franchisees exclusive rights
Advantage in the event of an illegal supply stop
Advantage in the event of an illegal supply stop
No contractual penalty for non-compete violation
No contractual penalty for non-compete violation
The AD of September 14, 2016, mr. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam about wanting to share with franchisees in the online revenue of franchisor web shops.
The AD of September 14, 2016, mr. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam about wanting to share with franchisees in the online revenue of franchisor web shops.
Interview Mr. Alex W. Dolphijn at BNR Nieuwsradio about the further escalation of Bruna’s long-running conflict with its franchisees
Interview Mr. Alex W. Dolphijn at BNR Nieuwsradio about the further escalation of Bruna's long-running conflict with its franchisees
Front page of Het Financieele Dagblad and on page 3 dated 8 September 2016; mr. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam about the further escalation of Bruna’s long-running conflict with its franchisees.
Front page of Het Financieele Dagblad and on page 3 dated 8 September 2016; mr. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam about the further escalation of Bruna's long-running conflict with its franchisee