Amy Pieters takes Team SD Worx - Protime to court in a dispute over her "indefinite" contract

Cycling
Saturday, 04 May 2024 at 08:30
copyright proshots 19883045
Amy Pieters has taken Team SD Worx - Protime to court. The 32-year-old Dutch woman wants the team to acknowledge that she has an indefinite contract and pay the outstanding wages. The rider suffered serious brain damage in a hard fall during 2021 training camp with the team.
Pieters currently has no source of income, as her employment with then SD Worx ended on January 1, 2023. "Through proceedings before the subdistrict court, she wants confirmation that her agreement with SD Worx, located in the municipality of Meerssen, counts as an employment contract for an indefinite period," local newspaper De Limburger reports the words of her lawyer.
SD Worx reportedly believes that this matter does not belong in the Dutch courts but should be raised with the arbitration committee of the international cycling association UCI. "However, the court in Maastricht did not agree to the cycling team's request," the relevant article states.
The central issue is therefore 'employment for an indefinite period', as a rider will never be in the peloton until the age of 67. According to Nick Poggenklaas, counsel for Pieters, that question is not relevant as nothing is specifically stated about it in the law. "I understand that this is annoying, but that is just the way it is regulated by law."
claps 0visitors 0
3 Comments
User Avatar
StardustDragon 04 May 2024 at 10:04+ 1653

This is new...

Mistermaumau 07 May 2024 at 16:58+ 3492

Legally it will be interesting but I think she will lose.

The article really messes up the description of the situation. Firstly, it does not explain at all why her contract should be indefinite which isn’t really ever the case in cycling and secondly, it doesn’t mention that her accident was outside her duties to the team (and this will have a huge impact).

She was training with the national team so it had nothing to do with her employment and the damages are likely to become the responsibility of her cyclists insurance (personal, national or even UCI) and not her employer (of course, each will find it worthwhile to try to trick another into paying out).

As to the argument for having begotten an indefinite contact. Some countries have laws stating that you cannot propose 3 consecutive defined period contracts to an employee, the reason behind this is to avoid companies from being able to avoid taking on hard to fire staff with more rights and benefits or keeping people temping all their life.

The problem is that a judge will quickly see that cycling contracts are always period defined (for the very simple reason of work being performance based) and that this is in no way an attempt to avoid exploitation of employees.

She might also want to take care to reread her whole contract to avoid being sued by the team if they want to turn nasty. Just like many cycling contracts will have clauses banning riders from undertaking dangerous activities outside their work (like skiing or riding motorbikes), she may not actually have had a written clause allowing her to ride her bike with or for others, that could boomerang her.

In any case, it’s a sad ending to things but one that concerns thousands and thousands of people less well equipped to test their rights or to use public pressure to sway decisions or change things.

At least this case will help make contracts clearer for others in future.

User Avatar
StardustDragon 04 May 2024 at 20:49+ 1653

💯% agreed

Just in

Popular news

Latest comments