Amy Pieters v SD Worx-Protime

In December 2021, celebrated Dutch cyclist Amy Pieters was involved in a significant crash during a training session in Spain that had been organised by the Dutch Cycling Federation. As a result of the crash, Pieters was in a coma for several weeks, following which it was discovered that she had suffered life-altering brain damage.

Pieters held a contract with professional cycling team SD Worx-Protime (the Team) at the time, which subsequently expired on 1 January 2023 (the Contract). Pieters received no further income from the Team after this date.

Following the expiry of the Contract, a dispute arose between the parties as to Pieters’ employment status. Pieters contended that she was: (i) an employee; and (ii) owed additional income pursuant to an “indefinite contract” with the Team. The cyclist based her claim on the so-called “chain rule” (applicable under Dutch law ) whereby consecutive fixed-term contracts convert into an employment contract for an indefinite period of time. In contrast, the Team contended that Pieters was a self-employed rider and was therefore not entitled to payment beyond the Contract.

Pieters initially brought her claim in the subdistrict court in Maastricht, with the court’s competence being promptly challenged by the Team owing to an arbitration clause in the Contract. Interim proceedings were heard in April 2024 to determine the arbitration issue. Under Dutch law, an arbitration clause can be set aside in exceptional circumstances, namely if it would otherwise be unreasonable and unfair for the clause to be invoked. The court held that invoking the arbitration clause was unreasonable, given the considerable practical issues in enforcing this clause (including the potentially considerable costs of the arbitration and Pieters’ financial situation).