The Dutch State has not acted unlawfully against Uber and the taxi drivers who use the Uber app by declaring the Collective Labor Agreement for Healthcare Transport and Taxi 2022 generally binding. This was determined today by the Court of Appeal of The Hague in a case of Uber against the State.

In September 2021, the Amsterdam court ruled in proceedings between FNV and Uber declared right that the “drivers who have personally committed themselves to Uber to transport people” should be considered employees of Uber. The court has ordered Uber to comply with this collective agreement for the periods in which the collective labor agreement at the time was (or was) generally binding. Uber has appealed. In the meantime, a new Collective Labor Agreement has been drawn up. Uber is not a member of any of the parties to that collective agreement.

This new Collective Labor Agreement, the Collective Labor Agreement for Healthcare Transport and Taxi 2022, has been made generally binding by the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment at the request of FNV, KNV and CNV (who have joined the State in this procedure) with effect from 19 May 2022. declared. However, according to Uber (and the seven drivers who have joined Uber's side), the legal representativeness requirement has not been met, because the judgment of the Amsterdam court was wrongly not taken into account. Therefore, this decision of the minister is clearly unlawful towards them. They claim in these proceedings on the grounds (among other things) that the decision is rendered inoperative with regard to Uber and the taxi drivers who use the Uber app.

not assignable

Like the Court of Appeal in The Hague, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the claims cannot be allowed. The Court of Appeal has come to the conclusion that there is no urgent interest, now that the Amsterdam judgment of September 2021 is not irrevocable and the declaratory judgment given therein does not have to be executed immediately. Needless to say, the court considers that restraint is required in a case like this. A generally binding declaration can only be rendered ineffective in summary proceedings if it is unmistakably unlawful, which is not the case here.

Source: The Judiciary