News

Consumer or Entrepreneur, Everyone Encounters the "Small Print" Daily

Using terms and conditions is common practice and can be encountered when entering into any agreement. However, the use and content of terms and conditions are subject to regulations.

For instance, a clause in the terms and conditions can be voidable if, considering the nature and other contents of the agreement, the manner in which the conditions were established, the mutually apparent interests of the parties, and other circumstances of the case, it is unreasonably onerous for the other party. Relevant circumstances include the parties' status, their social positions, their relationship, and their expertise. If a clause in the terms and conditions is voidable, the user of those terms cannot rely on that clause.

For agreements with a consumer, the law includes a list of provisions that are deemed unreasonably onerous (the 'black list') and a list of provisions that are presumed to be unreasonably onerous (the 'grey list').

While the black and grey lists apply to agreements with consumers, it can also be relevant, even if the other party is not a consumer, to consider whether a clause in the terms and conditions appears on one of these lists when determining if it is unreasonably onerous for that party. When establishing the black and grey lists, the legislator noted that a small legal entity that is materially indistinguishable from a consumer may also invoke the black or grey list. In practice, we refer to this as 'reflex effect.'

Reflex effect is also possible in other cases, for example, if the other party has entered into an agreement in the course of its profession or business, but the agreement does not relate to its core professional or business activities. There can be cases where the other party is not a consumer, but their position closely resembles that of a consumer. In such cases, the fact that the clause appears on the black or grey list can be considered when assessing whether the clause is unreasonably onerous for that party.

This was addressed in a Supreme Court ruling on 8 September 2023. A couple runs a cheese and dairy business, initially as a partnership and later as a private limited company. They entered into an agreement with a party involved in financial advice and mediation. The agreement concerned a subsidy program from the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs that promotes innovative investment projects in developing countries. The advisor's terms and conditions included:

“1. Complaints about the work performed must be reported to the user in writing by the client within 8 days of discovery, but no later than 14 days after the completion of the work in question. The notice of default must contain a detailed description of the shortcoming, allowing the user to respond adequately. (…)”

Such a clause is in conflict with the grey and black lists and is presumed unreasonably onerous because it shortens a statutory limitation or expiration period within which a right must be exercised.

The advisor argued that the couple could not invoke the black and/or grey list because they were acting as a legal entity (B.V.). However, the Supreme Court ruled that the clause is unreasonably onerous. In its judgment, the Supreme Court considered the nature of the couple's business (cheese and dairy), their lack of knowledge and experience with the complex financial matters related to the agreement with the advisor, the fact that they had engaged the advisor for this reason, and the fact that the clause appears on the black and/or grey list.

The Court concluded that the couple's position, or at least that of the company, resembles that of a consumer and thus deserves protection. The agreement did not relate to the core activities of the business.

The Supreme Court's ruling demonstrates that the applicability of the black and/or grey list is not only relevant for consumers and/or small entrepreneurs. Reflex effect can indeed be relevant between larger parties.

Read the ruling here.

We have previously informed you about the "Work Where You Want" bill. This will be our last post on this bill for now, as it did not pass in the Senate. Last week, the Senate voted on the Work Where You Want Act, which aimed to make it easier for employees to work in a hybrid manner. The bill would have given employees more freedom to work from home or another location. According to the bill, employers could only refuse a request to change the workplace if they had compelling business interests. This rule also applies to requests from employees to adjust their working hours and schedules. After advice from the Social and Economic Council (SER), this was relaxed to stipulate that an employee's request to work from home should be assessed "according to standards of reasonableness and fairness." The Senate has now rejected the bill. Given the existing regulatory burden on employers, the Senate deemed it unnecessary to amend the current legislation. Employers and employees will need to discuss any request to change the workplace and adhere to the current rules.

What Are the Current Rules?

The current rules are outlined in the Flexible Working Act. If an employee requests to work from home, this request must be submitted at least two months before the intended start date. The employer is required to consider the request and discuss it with the employee. Unlike a request to adjust working hours or schedules, an employer does not need a compelling business interest to refuse a work-from-home request. Such a request can be fairly easily declined, but the employer must provide a written explanation to the employee. Note that if a decision is not made one month before the intended start date, the request must be granted.

In Summary

You are not obligated to agree to a request to work from home. If you do agree, ensure you have a good hybrid working protocol in place.

If you have any questions or are interested in a hybrid working protocol, please contact our employment law specialists.

Future of Pensions Act

On 1 July 2023, the Future of Pensions Act came into force. The reasons for revising the pension system include changing social preferences and financial circumstances. This includes the growing number of flexible employment relationships and self-employed workers, and the decrease in the number of people with permanent employment. The new law changes the types of pension agreements and includes new schemes for self-employed workers.

Types of Pension Agreements

In the old pension system, there were three types of pension agreements: the benefit agreement, the capital agreement, and the premium agreement. In the new system, only the premium agreement remains. In a premium agreement, a fixed pension premium is determined for the employee's pension accrual. This is typically a fixed percentage of the annual salary or the pensionable salary. The final pension amount depends on factors such as the paid pension premiums, investment returns, interest rates, and life expectancy developments. In short, there are three types of premium agreements:

• Solidarity Premium Agreement: In this premium scheme, there are no individual pots for investments by pension providers. The available premium is invested collectively. Investment returns are distributed according to age, with younger participants receiving more returns and taking on more risk than older participants.
• Flexible Premium Agreement: This premium scheme offers more flexibility for the participant to align the pension contract with personal preferences. The participant has an individual pot and can choose to take more or less risk.
• Premium Benefit Agreement: This premium scheme is a pure premium scheme up to 15 years before the statutory retirement age. From 15 years before the statutory retirement age, the participant can purchase a fixed lifelong pension from the retirement date. This form will only be accessible to insurers, as they can guarantee a nominal pension.

What Changes for the Employer?

It is important to know whether the employer is affiliated with an industry pension fund. If the employer is affiliated with an industry pension fund, the pension scheme will be amended at the fund level. This employer is obliged to comply with the amended pension agreement, and employee consent is not required.

An employer who has agreed on a pension scheme with the employee on an individual level can amend this in two ways. The first way to amend the pension agreement is with the employee’s consent, making the employee bound to the amended pension agreement. The second way is unilateral amendment, which is only possible if the employer has agreed on a unilateral amendment clause with the employee. To invoke the unilateral amendment clause, the employer must have a sufficiently important interest. A change in pension legislation is considered such an interest, giving the employer a reason to invoke the unilateral amendment clause.

Additionally, the employer must also obtain the approval of the works council when amending an individual pension scheme, or seek advice from the employee representative body or the employee meeting. If agreements are made at the collective level, such as in a collective labour agreement, employee input is arranged through collective consultation between employer and employee organisations.

Self-Employed Workers

Only a limited number of self-employed individuals take advantage of saving for their retirement. To prevent a significant drop in income, the Pension Agreement includes arrangements aimed at the self-employed.

The new law gives self-employed individuals more opportunities to arrange their pensions in a tax-efficient manner. Additionally, an experiment in the second pillar has been set up. A self-employed individual can join the industry pension fund relevant to the sector in which they work. They also have the option to join a pension scheme offered by a general pension fund, insurer, or premium pension institution, which is open for voluntary participation by the self-employed. Self-employed individuals can specify a flexible pension choice salary, within a certain minimum and maximum, based on which the pension premium is calculated.

Conclusion

Employers should check whether they need to take action to apply the new legislation to their employees. The transition period runs until 1 January 2028. If you have questions about your (potential) affiliation with an industry pension fund, please contact Dennis Oud, Hans de Haij, Tessa Sipkema, or Elke Hofman.

New Academic Year Begins: Who Bears the Costs?

The new academic year has begun, bringing new opportunities for employees to follow a study or course. However, this naturally incurs costs 💶, and the question arises: who ultimately pays for this? Employer or employee?

How Does It Work Again?

The law does not provide specific regulations detailing the requirements for a training costs clause, but according to case law, it must include:

• Benefit Period: The period within which the employer expects to benefit from the employee's new knowledge and skills.
• Sliding Scale: The repayment obligation should be proportionally reduced with the continuation of the employment contract after the completion of the training.
• Clear Explanation: The repayment scheme must be clearly explained to the employee.

If these requirements are not met, the training costs clause is void (invalid). For example, if you do not clearly inform the employee of the financial consequences, you act contrary to good employer practice, resulting in an invalid training costs clause.

Valid Training Costs Clause

Even if there is a valid training costs clause, the question remains whether you, as an employer, can reclaim the training costs. The regulation in Article 7:611a of the Civil Code applies here. As an employer, you must enable an employee to undertake training necessary for the performance of their duties. If this training is mandatory under applicable EU law, national law, or a collective labour agreement, then the training costs are entirely the employer's responsibility. Even if the training costs clause meets the requirements set by case law, the repayment scheme may still be void if it concerns costs you incurred for training necessary for the employee's job performance. However, if the training was required knowledge at the start of the job, you are allowed to agree on a repayment scheme.

In Summary

Are you about to have your employee(s) follow an expensive training or course? Ensure you can agree on a repayment scheme and that the training costs clause meets the required criteria.

Click here for a ruling on the training costs clause and the repayment of training.

### Commitment from the Receptionist?

When the municipal receptionist tells you that you will "definitely get that environmental permit" and "should just go ahead and start building your new shed," it is clear to you that her commitment will have no impact on the permit procedure. However, if the official handling your permit application makes this statement, it is a different matter. This simple example shows that not every statement made by a municipal employee can be seen as a commitment that gives you, as a citizen, the confidence to undertake a particular action. In reality, things are less clear-cut, and it is more challenging to determine whether there is a commitment. Case law uses a fixed assessment framework to judge whether a commitment has been made.

A commitment occurs when officials or third parties (e.g., lawyers engaged by the municipality) say or do something that gives the citizen the impression that the municipality has taken a stance on the decision to be made. The most crucial aspect here is the expertise of the person making the commitment. Additionally, it must be a commitment in a specific situation. Returning to the example: the receptionist will, of course, not have the necessary expertise to make such commitments, but the official handling the permit application likely will.

When assessing whether there is a commitment, more weight is deliberately given to how the statement or behaviour of the municipality is perceived by the citizen. This does not mean that if the receptionist makes a commitment that comes across as very convincing, the citizen can rely on this commitment. The commitment must also be attributable to the competent administrative body. It is clear that the receptionist cannot speak on behalf of the competent administrative body.

In summary, a commitment is made if the statement or behaviour is made by someone who could make such a statement or behaviour on behalf of the municipality, who has a certain level of expertise, and who makes this statement or behaviour in a specific situation.

Are you dealing with a government agency that has made an (incorrect) commitment, do you have an ongoing procedure with the municipality, or are you unsure whether you can rely on a commitment made? Contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman.

For an example of a ruling regarding commitments, where the statements of the alderman and case manager are considered commitments, read here.

Zeggen dat zwarte mensen stinken en dat daardoor de bedrijfsauto stinkt,  dat alle moslims vrouwen mishandelen en een collega voor aap uitmaken zijn zonder twijfel racistische en discriminerende uitlatingen. Voor de werkgever van wie een medewerkster deze uitspraken deed, waren deze uitlatingen onaanvaardbaar en aanleiding voor een ontslag op staande voet. Ondanks het zerotolerancebeleid dat deze werkgever hanteert, heeft het ontslag op staande voet geen stand gehouden bij de rechter in Rotterdam.

Wanneer kan je een ontslag op staande voet geven?

De werkgever moet allereerst een dringende reden hebben. Bij een dringende reden kan men denken aan o.a. diefstal of verduistering bij werkgever en soms ook discriminerende of anderszins grensoverschrijdende uitingen als deze zo ernstig zijn dat van de werkgever niet meer kan worden verwacht dat hij de arbeidsovereenkomst in stand laat. Een ontslag op staande voet moet onverwijld worden gegeven. Dit houdt in dat de werkgever niet te lang mag wachten met het ontslag geven vanaf het moment dat hij bekend is met de feiten. De werkgever krijgt wel de tijd om een onderzoek naar de feiten in te stellen of om juridisch advies in te winnen, zolang er met de nodige voortvarendheid wordt gehandeld. Ook moet de reden van het ontslag onverwijld aan de werknemer worden meegedeeld, zodat hij zijn standpunt wat betreft het ontslag kan bepalen. De reden voor ontslag moet dus duidelijk aan de werknemer (ook schriftelijk i.v.m. bewijsproblemen) kenbaar worden gemaakt.

Het geven van een ontslag op staande voet dient als uiterste redmiddel te worden gezien vanwege de grote consequenties die het ontslag met zich meebrengt. Een werkgever mag hier dus pas tot overgaan wanneer hij geen andere opties meer heeft dan de werknemer direct te ontslaan. Hij moet hierbij alle omstandigheden van het geval in aanmerking nemen, zoals de aard en duur van de dienstbetrekking, de aard en ernst van de dringende reden en de persoonlijke omstandigheden van de werknemer.  Wanneer een werknemer op staande voet wordt ontslagen heeft hij geen recht op een transitievergoeding en ook niet op een WW-uitkering. Financieel gezien heeft het ontslag dus grote gevolgen, naast de eventuele reputatieschade die de werknemer oploopt.

In deze zaak oordeelde de rechter dat de werkgever een minder ingrijpende sanctie had moeten kiezen aangezien het functioneren van de werkneemster nooit ter discussie heeft gestaan in de 1,5 jaar dat zij daar werkzaam was. Daarnaast is niet vast komen te staan dat het zerotolerancebeleid voldoende duidelijk was bij de werkneemster. De werkgever had hier kunnen en moeten kiezen voor een minder vergaande actie, bijvoorbeeld een stevige officiële laatste waarschuwing. Nu het ontslag niet rechtsgeldig is gegeven, moet de werkgever zowel de transitievergoeding als ook een billijke vergoeding en een vergoeding wegens onregelmatige opzegging betalen.

Heeft u vragen over ontslag of andere arbeidsrechtelijke zaken? Neem dan contact op met Dennis Oud, Hans de Haij, Elke Hofman-Bijvank of met Tessa Sipkema.

Lees de volledige uitspraak hier.