2015/33 Court defines “employment agreement for a temporary employment agency worker” narrowly (NL)

Directive 2008/104/EC on temporary agency work applies to employees of a temporary-work agency who are assigned to user undertakings to work temporarily under their supervision and direction. A similar definition was introduced in the Dutch Civil Code in 1999, five years before the directive was adopted. Recently, a Dutch Court of Appeal added an element to the definition. It ruled that, in order to qualify as a temporary employment agency, an employer must perform what is known as an ‘allocation function’. This means that the employer must be in the business of bringing together supply and demand of labour by assigning employees to customers. In the case reported below, the employer assigned its employees, not to customers but to another group company in order to perform transportation services there, not temporarily but permanently. The court held that this activity did not meet the ‘allocation’ requirement and that therefore the company in question was not a temporary employment agency.

At first sight, this may appear to be a domestically Dutch issue. However, as the Commentary explains, this judgment could be relevant in other European jurisdictions

<strong>2015/33 Court defines &ldquo;employment agreement for a temporary employment agency worker&rdquo; narrowly (NL)</strong>

Directive 2008/104/EC on temporary agency work applies to employees of a temporary-work agency who are assigned to user undertakings to work temporarily under their supervision and direction. A similar definition was introduced in the Dutch Civil Code in 1999, five years before the directive was adopted. Recently, a Dutch Court of Appeal added an element to the definition. It ruled that, in order to qualify as a temporary employment agency, an employer must perform what is known as an ‘allocation function’. This means that the employer must be in the business of bringing together supply and demand of labour by assigning employees to customers. In the case reported below, the employer assigned its employees, not to customers but to another group company in order to perform transportation services there, not temporarily but permanently. The court held that this activity did not meet the ‘allocation’ requirement and that therefore the company in question was not a temporary employment agency.

At first sight, this may appear to be a domestically Dutch issue. However, as the Commentary explains, this judgment could be relevant in other European jurisdictions

2015/33 Court defines “employment agreement for a temporary employment agency worker” narrowly (NL)

Directive 2008/104/EC on temporary agency work applies to employees of a temporary-work agency who are assigned to user undertakings to work temporarily under their supervision and direction. A similar definition was introduced in the Dutch Civil Code in 1999, five years before the directive was adopted. Recently, a Dutch Court of Appeal added an element to the definition. It ruled that, in order to qualify as a temporary employment agency, an employer must perform what is known as an ‘allocation function’. This means that the employer must be in the business of bringing together supply and demand of labour by assigning employees to customers. In the case reported below, the employer assigned its employees, not to customers but to another group company in order to perform transportation services there, not temporarily but permanently. The court held that this activity did not meet the ‘allocation’ requirement and that therefore the company in question was not a temporary employment agency.

At first sight, this may appear to be a domestically Dutch issue. However, as the Commentary explains, this judgment could be relevant in other European jurisdictions

<strong>2015/33 Court defines &ldquo;employment agreement for a temporary employment agency worker&rdquo; narrowly (NL)</strong>

Directive 2008/104/EC on temporary agency work applies to employees of a temporary-work agency who are assigned to user undertakings to work temporarily under their supervision and direction. A similar definition was introduced in the Dutch Civil Code in 1999, five years before the directive was adopted. Recently, a Dutch Court of Appeal added an element to the definition. It ruled that, in order to qualify as a temporary employment agency, an employer must perform what is known as an ‘allocation function’. This means that the employer must be in the business of bringing together supply and demand of labour by assigning employees to customers. In the case reported below, the employer assigned its employees, not to customers but to another group company in order to perform transportation services there, not temporarily but permanently. The court held that this activity did not meet the ‘allocation’ requirement and that therefore the company in question was not a temporary employment agency.

At first sight, this may appear to be a domestically Dutch issue. However, as the Commentary explains, this judgment could be relevant in other European jurisdictions

2015/25 Does a ban on visible outward signs of religious belief at work constitute direct discrimination? (BE)

The Belgian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) has asked the European Court of Justice whether Directive 2000/78 should be interpreted in such a way that a prohibition on wearing a headscarf at work does (not) constitute direct discrimination where the employer’s workplace rules prohibit all employees from wearing outward signs of political, philosophical and religious belief in the workplace.

<strong>2015/25 Does a ban on visible outward signs of religious belief at work constitute direct discrimination? (BE)</strong>

The Belgian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) has asked the European Court of Justice whether Directive 2000/78 should be interpreted in such a way that a prohibition on wearing a headscarf at work does (not) constitute direct discrimination where the employer’s workplace rules prohibit all employees from wearing outward signs of political, philosophical and religious belief in the workplace.

ECJ 26 February 2015, case C-515/13 (Igneniørforeningen i Danmark – v – Tekniq), Age discrimination

Mr Landin was employed by Enco. At his request, payment of his State retirement pension, which...

<p>ECJ 26 February 2015, case C-515/13&nbsp;(Igneni&oslash;rforeningen i Danmark &ndash; v &ndash; Tekniq), Age discrimination</p>

Mr Landin was employed by Enco. At his request, payment of his State retirement pension, which...

ECJ 26 February 2015, case C-238/14 (European Commission – v – Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), Fixed-term work

Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Directive 1999/70 requires...

<p><strong>ECJ 26 February 2015, case C-238/14&nbsp;(European Commission &ndash; v &ndash; Grand Duchy of Luxembourg),&nbsp;Fixed-term work</strong></p>

Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Directive 1999/70 requires...