THE BOTTOM LINE
- Your Assets Can Be Held Hostage: This ruling confirms that employees with valid wage claims can legally take possession of company assets, like a truck, under a right of retention until the debt is paid. This creates a significant operational and financial risk for transport and logistics companies.
- Documentation Is Your Defense: The employer’s failure to provide key evidence, such as tachograph data, led the court to accept the employee’s version of hours worked. In any dispute, the burden of proof is on the employer to disprove an employee’s claims with solid documentation.
- EU Labor Laws Override Contracts: Even with a Lithuanian employment contract, the court applied the EU’s Posting of Workers Directive. This meant the driver was entitled to a higher effective wage for work performed in higher-cost countries like the Netherlands and Germany, substantially increasing the employer’s liability.
THE DETAILS
A dispute between a Lithuanian transport company and its driver from Tajikistan has provided a stark reminder of the risks businesses face when deploying employees across Europe. The case began when the driver, claiming significant unpaid wages, parked his truck at a Dutch roadside stop and refused to move it or hand over the keys. He asserted a right of retention—a legal tool similar to a lien—over the vehicle to secure payment. The company initiated urgent court proceedings to reclaim its valuable asset, arguing the driver’s actions constituted an unlawful seizure of its property.
The Dutch court sided squarely with the driver. The first step was to determine if the driver had a legitimate, overdue claim. The court found that he did. It accepted the driver’s calculation of hours worked, largely because the company failed to produce its tachograph data to challenge it. Critically, the court also applied the EU’s Posting of Workers Directive, awarding the driver an additional €4.00 per hour on top of his contractual rate to reflect the higher minimum wages in the Western European countries where he operated. This decision underscores that a contract’s choice of law cannot be used to circumvent mandatory EU-wide employee protections.
With a valid wage claim established, the court turned to the legality of holding the truck. The company argued that the wage dispute was not sufficiently connected to the physical truck to justify its retention. The court dismissed this argument, finding that both the company’s duty to pay wages and the driver’s duty to return company property originated from the same employment agreement. It also rejected the idea that holding a high-value truck was a disproportionate measure, noting it was the only effective means the driver had to enforce his rights. The company’s claim to have its truck returned was denied, and it was ordered to pay the full amount of outstanding wages and allowances.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Overijssel
