This key question was submitted to the judge by FNV on behalf of Picnic workers. On the 1st of November, the judge listened to and questioned the arguments of FNV and Picnic during a court hearing. On the 3rd of December, the judge will send his verdict to us.
Every cao determines which organisations are covered by the cao. There can be a difference in interpretation when explaining the text. This is also the case here. Therefore, it is up to the judge to determine whether Picnic is a supermarket according to the text in the Supermarket cao.
The arguments of FNV and Picnic
FNV: Picnic sells and delivers groceries to consumers. The transaction occurs virtually via an app, but what you order really ends up in your kitchen in the real world. All of the activities (selling, shopping and delivery) together make up what Picnic does for its customers in its (partly virtual) supermarket. That’s why the supermarket CAO is also applicable to Picnic, just like it is to other online supermarkets.
Picnic: Picnic disagrees and claims they are a tech company. If anything should be called a supermarket it is only the part of Picnic where the transaction with the customer takes place. Not the parts where the shopping (picking) and delivery is done. So only Picnic BV, not Picnic Fulfilment BV and Picnic Hubs BV, can be called a supermarket.
In other words: the cao does not apply to the Picnic organisations in which you work hard to make Picnic a success. With this trick Picnic hopes to have an excuse to pay you less than other competing (online) supermarkets do. That’s how Picnic can reduce costs, offer free delivery and that is why you get less salary than you deserve.
It is now up to the judge to decide.