Temper Judgment: Court of Appeal holds platform workers to be temporary agency workers

Almost two years after the judgment of the District Court of Amsterdam (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:3987), the Amsterdam Court of Appeal delivered a significant ruling on 16 June 2026 concerning the status of workers performing assignments through the Temper platform. Whereas the District Court had previously held that no temporary employment agency relationship existed, the Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion on appeal. According to the Court, the legal relationships between Temper and its workers qualify as temporary employment agency contracts within the meaning of Article 7:690 of the Dutch Civil Code. This finding is noteworthy, as Temper has long presented itself as a digital platform that merely facilitates direct contact between self-employed workers and clients.

More Than a Digital Notice Board

In its assessment, the Court closely examined the role that Temper fulfils in practice. Although workers and clients formally enter into contracts for services with one another, the Court found that Temper's activities extend far beyond simply matching supply and demand. The platform organizes the entire process surrounding the performance of work, including the offering of assignments, the selection of workers, and the administrative and payment processes.

The Court further considered it significant that workers are made available to clients through the platform in order to perform work under the clients’ direction and supervision. Such “making available” constitutes an essential characteristic of a temporary agency employment contract under Dutch law. According to the Court, the fact that workers register as self-employed contractors or make use of a model services agreement does not alter that legal qualification.

Collective Determination Possible

Notably, the Court explicitly departed from the approach adopted in the Uber judgement. In that case, considerable weight was attached to the fact that the individual circumstances of drivers varied substantially, making it impossible to render a general determination applicable to all drivers.

The Court took a different view in relation to Temper. It held that the assessment primarily concerns the uniform manner in which the platform operates. Because the platform’s working method is essentially the same for all workers, a collective determination regarding the legal qualification of the relationship between Temper and its workers is possible. The Court therefore declared that a temporary agency employment contract exists between Temper and all persons who perform, or have performed, work through the platform.

Significant Implications for Practice

The principal significance of the judgment lies in its approach to the issue of legal qualification. The Court made clear that platform businesses cannot rely solely on the use of self-employed contractor agreements where their actual role closely resembles that of a temporary work agency. For organizations engaging large numbers of independent contractors, the ruling once again confirms that courts are increasingly focused on the economic reality underlying a contractual arrangement. Ultimately, it is not the label attached to an agreement that determines its legal classification, but rather the manner in which the work is actually organized and performed.