In practice, the line between a digital work platform and a temporary employment agency is increasingly a subject of discussion. For organisations that deploy workers via apps or online platforms, the core question is simple but far-reaching: is this really independent intermediation, or is it, legally speaking, simply a classic flexible-work construction in a modern jacket?
On appeal, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 16 June 2026 (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:1612) that intermediation platform Temper is not merely a neutral noticeboard, but an active intermediary of personnel. As a result, the agreements concluded via the platform qualify as temporary employment agreements, with all the associated employment-law consequences. For platforms, clients and organisations working with comparable models, that is an important and potentially far-reaching ruling. The ruling shows that, on the question of qualification, the court looks primarily at how the platform actually operates, and not only at the labels chosen or the technical set-up.
What happened in this case?
The case revolved around the question of whether Temper workers, referred to by the platform itself as “FreeFlexers”, performed assignments independently via Temper, or whether there was a temporary employment relationship. Temper matched workers via an app to clients for, among other things, hospitality work, cleaning work, reception work and logistics jobs. Trade unions FNV and CNV argued that Temper in fact functioned as a temporary employment agency, and that the workers were therefore entitled to the employment-law protection of the temporary employment CLA.
The Amsterdam District Court did not yet follow that reasoning in 2024, partly because Temper did not formally pay out wages and clients handled the day-to-day supervision. On appeal, the Court of Appeal looks differently at the same practice. According to the Court of Appeal, it is decisive that Temper recruits and selects workers, gives them access to jobs, sets quality requirements, can bar workers, and determines the terms of the collaboration. Those are precisely the characteristics the Court of Appeal considers relevant for qualification as a temporary employment agreement.
Nor was the Court of Appeal in the least convinced by the argument that payments ran via a factoring arrangement. This meant the workers bore no debtor risk, which is not characteristic of independent entrepreneurship. The conclusion is therefore that Temper does not merely mediate, but has control over the temporary workers. The agreements concluded via the platform are thus temporary employment agreements, and Temper must be regarded as the agency supplying the workers.
Impact of the ruling on practice
This ruling is relevant for many platforms and intermediation models, because the court makes clear that the label is not decisive. If a platform in fact recruits, selects, allocates, shields and directs workers using its own rules of the game, that can readily be interpreted legally as employership. For the workers involved, that may mean entitlement to CLA application, pension accrual, continued payment of wages during illness, and back payments. For clients, it means that their own position under such a model also needs to be reviewed.
The lesson is therefore broader than Temper alone: anyone organising digital personnel needs to realise that the courts look through this kind of construction. Platforms would therefore do well to have their actual role, contracts and operational management thoroughly reviewed.
The corporate lawyers of The Legal Company regularly advise and support organisations in structuring and assessing employment relationships, in order to prevent false self-employment. Do you need support with this yourself? Please feel free to contact us via info@thelegalcompany.nl or 020-3450152.
Blog by our corporate law expert Niels Terlouw LL.M.
