The Owner-Operator Who Looks Like an Employee
Sofie runs a small Antwerp haulage firm with a Belgian community licence. She wants to add capacity without buying trucks. She proposes a structure with Pieter, who owns his own tractor unit. Pieter would drive exclusively for Sofie, use her trailer, wear her livery, follow her dispatcher's instructions, take holidays only with her approval, and be paid a fixed amount per month plus a per-kilometre bonus. Pieter would invoice Sofie monthly with VAT and register as a self-employed natural person. Sofie's accountant warns that the arrangement may be reclassified. Sofie also asks whether she can simply 'lend' her community licence to Pieter so he can operate under her authority.
1. Would Pieter likely be reclassified as an employee, and what factors drive that conclusion?
Read the worked answer
On these facts, reclassification is a real risk. Belgian labour law looks at the substance of the relationship, not the label on the invoice. The indicia of subordination are strong: exclusivity, use of Sofie's trailer and livery, instructions from her dispatcher, control over working time, and approval of holidays. Those are the classic elements of an employment relationship - authority, direction and control.
The fixed monthly payment plus kilometre bonus reinforces the picture: a genuine self-employed operator typically bears commercial risk and prices per job, whereas a guaranteed monthly sum shifts the risk to Sofie.
Countervailing factors exist: Pieter owns the tractor, which is a significant investment and a marker of independence, and he invoices with VAT. But asset ownership alone does not defeat subordination.
The consequence of reclassification is serious: arrears of social security contributions, payroll withholding, holiday pay, notice, and possible criminal exposure. Sofie should restructure genuinely - multiple customers, own trailer, own scheduling, real commercial risk, and no exclusivity - or hire Pieter as an employee and stop pretending otherwise.
2. Can Sofie 'lend' her community licence to Pieter?
Read the worked answer
No. A community licence is granted to a specific undertaking and is not transferable or lendable. Access to the occupation is regulated: the licence holder must satisfy the establishment, financial standing, professional competence and good repute requirements, and the licence attaches to that operator.
If Pieter operates vehicles under Sofie's licence and authority, the reality is that Pieter is performing transport for Sofie's account and under her responsibility - which is either subcontracting (with Pieter needing his own authorisation if he contracts in his own name) or employment. Presenting it as a 'loan' of the licence is a misdescription that can amount to unauthorised cabotage or unlicensed operation.
If Pieter wants to operate independently, he must obtain his own community licence, meet the four requirements himself, and be entered in the national register. Sofie can subcontract work to him, but the contract must reflect genuine subcontracting: Pieter prices the job, carries the risk, and is not directed like an employee. Otherwise both the labour and the access-to-market rules are breached at once.