Bankrupt Platform, ongoing Labour Conflict: cleaners working via Helpling recognised as temporary agency workers

In the case concerning the cleaners who worked via Helpling, a new ruling has recently been issued. On 11 April 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that cleaners who worked through the now-bankrupt platform Helpling must be considered temporary agency workers. Private households, in this context, were regarded as hirers of labour. Consequently, Helpling was deemed the legal employer, with all corresponding obligations. The cleaners were therefore working under a (specific) employment contract.

Background

Helpling was an online platform connecting households with cleaners. Cleaners could set their own availability and hourly rates, though these had to be approved by the hirers (i.e., the households). Helpling facilitated payments—retaining a commission—and arranged the contact between parties. Helpling maintained that it merely acted as a "facilitating platform", and that the cleaners worked independently for private clients. The trade union FNV disputed this, arguing that there was either an employment contract or a temporary agency relationship between Helpling and the cleaners.

Supreme Court Considerations

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal had previously ruled that a temporary agency agreement existed. A key consideration was that Helpling organised the work: it handled selection, administrative processing, mediation, and controlled the process. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling.

A crucial legal issue was whether private individuals can qualify as “hirers” under Dutch temporary agency law. The Court ruled that they can, even if they are not engaged in commercial or business activities. According to the legislative history of Article 7:690 of the Dutch Civil Code, an agency worker must perform their work within the company of the hirer. Helpling argued that this presupposes a commercial enterprise on the part of the hirer, which is not the case with private households.

However, both a report from the Council of State and the EU Directive on Temporary Agency Work indicate that hirers do not need to be acting in a professional or business capacity. The structure of the law, and the focus on the perspective of the worker and the agency supplying the worker, do not support Helpling’s interpretation.

The Supreme Court concluded that a triangular relationship existed between the cleaners, Helpling, and the households, and that the cleaners worked under a temporary agency contract.

Implications for Employers

This ruling confirms that natural persons (i.e., private individuals) can be considered hirers in the context of a temporary agency relationship. Employers who engage external workers through intermediaries or platforms should carefully assess the actual working relationship, degree of control, and dependency. The form (e.g., “mediation”) is less decisive than the reality of the working arrangement.

Where platforms organise or control work in practice, there may be a temporary agency relationship, potentially triggering obligations such as collective labour agreement (CLA) applicability, pension contributions, and other employment rights. Even if you are not the direct employer, you may be legally deemed a hirer.

Bankrupt Platform, ongoing Labour Conflict: cleaners working via Helpling recognised as temporary agency workers