Central Appeals Court, 27 November 2024, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2024:2233
This case concerned the question of whether the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) had rightly refused to grant an employee an unemployment benefit for a period longer than three months. The employee argued that she met the “years requirement” of Section 42 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (WW), partly through her work as a parcel delivery worker in 2015 and 2016. The Central Appeals Court (the Court) ruled that she had failed to demonstrate an employment relationship within the meaning of Section 3(1) WW, as opposed to a contract for services as a self-employed worker.
Facts
The employee worked as a waste sorter through Randstad staffing agency. After her dismissal, she applied for unemployment benefit. UWV granted her benefit for three months, but held that she did not meet the years requirement for a longer benefit period. Her work as a parcel delivery worker in 2015 and 2016 was not counted, because at that time she could not be regarded as an employee within the meaning of Section 3 WW, but had worked as a self-employed contractor.
The employee objected, but UWV maintained its position. At first instance, the district court upheld this ruling, finding that the employee had not provided sufficient evidence that she had worked under an employment contract or comparable working relationship during those years.
Ruling of the Court
On appeal, the Court followed the district court’s ruling. The Court noted that the assessment of an employment relationship must follow the framework set out in the Deliveroo judgment, under which all the circumstances of the case must be weighed together, and the parties’ own intentions play a less prominent role.
At the hearing, the employee submitted documents showing she had received a monthly payment for her work. Even so, she failed to demonstrate the existence of a relationship of authority and an obligation to perform the work personally. The Court held that the criterion of a relationship of authority was not met, and that there was therefore no employment contract. The employee’s appeal was dismissed as unfounded.
Conclusion
A court can also rule that an employment contract does exist, entitling the worker to benefit – even where no employee-insurance contributions were paid for that work. That, however, was not the case here.
Do you have questions about self-employed contractors carrying out work for your organisation and their legal status? Please feel free to contact our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
