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
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.