Belgian Public Prosecution Service demands a fine of more than 24 million euros for PostNL Belgium for abuses

The Public Prosecution Service in Belgium has demanded a fine of 24.4 million euros in a case against the Belgian branch of PostNL. According to the prosecutor, two parts of the postal company, PostNL Cargo and PostNL Pakketten, unlawfully deployed third-party personnel for several years. For example, employees of another company were called upon, but it was PostNL that had the most authority over them.

Central to the attorney’s argument are the agreements that PostNL Cargo and PostNL Pakketten concluded with 220 subcontractors. Belgian law sets strict conditions for this service agreement. For example, this must be drawn up in writing and the details of the instructions that a staff lending company may give must be detailed. The prosecutor refers to a ruling by the Court of Cassation: if the conditions are not met, the agreement is ‘illegitimate’.

Falling short

These agreements fell short, according to the prosecutor. And in doing so, the PostNL units acted unlawfully, referring several times to Article 31 of the Belgian Temporary Employment Act. This prescribes that companies are prohibited ‘from making employees available to third parties who use these employees and exercise any part of the authority over them that normally accrues to the employer’.

Authority

But it was PostNL Cargo and PostNL Parcels that had authority over the subcontractors’ staff, the prosecutor believes. Not the subcontractors themselves. For example, PostNL Belgium had a lot of influence on the recruitment and selection of drivers, in which the parent company from the Netherlands was also involved. Employees had to shadow PostNL for a few days and take a knowledge test. But according to the prosecutor, it is up to the subcontractor, with whom an employee has an employment contract, to check the suitability of personnel.

In addition, according to the prosecutor, PostNL addressed the hired employees directly in the event of incorrectly performed services, not the lending company. According to the prosecutor, the postal company even kept a register about this. But if it were up to the Public Prosecution Service, PostNL as a client could have merely served a notice of default on a company and, if necessary, had to terminate the cooperation agreement.

Also read | Belgian newspaper: CEO of PostNL Belgium arrested