Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether the franchisor needed a work permit in the (proposed) collaboration between a franchisor and an aspiring franchisee, because the aspiring franchisee is a foreign national. The work was apparently carried out in the pre-contractual phase prior to the conclusion of the franchise agreement.
A franchisor has been fined under the Foreign Nationals Employment Act because someone with Chinese nationality was performing work. The franchisor states that it cannot be regarded as the foreign national’s employer, because the foreign national is co-owner of its franchisee, as appears from the franchise agreement submitted. The franchisor also argues that there was no question of compensation or instructions about the work to be performed. Insofar as the foreign national has performed massages on busy days, these are activities that he performed on the basis of his upcoming franchiseeship that he decided on his own initiative.
However, the Council of State rules that the person who actually has a foreign national perform work is an employer subject to a permit. The existence of an employment contract or relationship of authority is irrelevant in this respect. The fact that a foreign national has performed work on behalf of or in the service of an employer is already sufficient for the assumption of actual employment status. The nature, scope and duration of the work and whether wages have been paid or whether it only concerned assistance are also irrelevant to the qualification of the employer. The fact that it concerned work in anticipation of the franchisee status of the foreign national and that he did not receive any wages does not alter the above. In view of the above, the franchisor, as an employer within the meaning of the Foreign Nationals Employment Act, should have been in possession of a work permit for the foreign national. Since the franchisor did not have that, the fine imposed on the franchisor is justified.
Franchisors would do well to verify the identity of the prospective franchisees in the pre-contractual phase, where training is provided or trial sessions are carried out, and where necessary to apply for a work permit.
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
Legal Franchise Statistics 2019: slight decrease in number of franchise disputes
In 2018, 44 judgments were published on Rechtspraak.nl, 12 of which were appeal cases and one in cassation (a prognosis issue against Albert Heijn).
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “Judge again rules in favor of Domino’s franchisees” – dated September 3, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
At the beginning of 2018, almost all franchisees of Domino's and the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees submitted two issues to the court in Rotterdam.
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “The interim termination of the franchise agreement” – August 12, 2019 – mr. JAJ Devilee
A franchise agreement can end prematurely in many ways.
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Parliamentary questions asked about (false) self-employment franchisees” – dated 24 July 2019 – mr. M. Munnik
Parliamentary questions have recently been asked about the so-called bogus self-employment within the relationship between franchisor and franchisee.
Article Franchise+: “With our franchise formula you will earn mountains of gold.” dated 10 July 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The distinction between permissible promotions and misleading information remains a gray area, despite the relevant legislation.
Franchisee may purchase a range of foreign products after mandatory formula change – June 6, 2019 – mr. JAJ Devilee
The District Court of East Brabant recently dealt with an important matter in preliminary relief proceedings in which a franchisee was completely involuntarily forced to adopt an alternative formula.