Netherlands
Work hours flexibility – Refusal of nine-hour working days upheld (case law)
Impact date: 17 March 2026 (date court decision was released) On 17 March 2026, a court ruled on a case where an employee requested to work four days of nine hours per week (36 hours in total) instead of five days of eight hours (40 hours). The employee sought this arrangement with Thursday as a fixed day off. The employer agreed to reduce the working hours to 36 per week but refused to allow nine-hour workdays, offering alternatives such as working four days of eight hours (32 hours) or alternating between four-day and five-day weeks of eight-hour days.
The employee’s interest in working four days of nine hours was based on achieving a better work-life balance and gaining mental rest by having one fixed day off per week. The employee argued that working only four days of eight hours (32 hours) was not financially viable. The employer relied on its internal policy stating that workdays should not exceed eight hours. The employer also invoked concerns about scheduling problems, understaffing risks, potential mental and physical overload, reduced productivity and quality, and the risk of setting a precedent.
The court applied article 2(7) of the Dutch Flexible Working Act (Wet Flexibel Werken, “Wfw”), which provides that the employer must grant the employee’s request regarding the distribution of working hours unless the employer has such an interest that the employee’s wish must yield to it according to standards of reasonableness and fairness. The court held that the employer’s interest in maintaining eight-hour workdays and preventing precedent outweighed the employee’s interest. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered that the employer had offered alternatives enabling the employee to work fewer hours without (or with limited) salary reduction, such as a four-and-a-half-day workweek or alternating four and five-day weeks. The court also noted that the employee had not invoked any compelling personal circumstances beyond a general desire for better work-life balance.
Importantly, the court held that an internal policy limiting workdays to a maximum of eight hours is not in itself contrary to the Flexible Working Act. Where an employer applies such a policy consistently and conducts an individual assessment for each request, granting an exception to one employee based on compelling personal circumstances does not oblige the employer to grant all similar requests. The court also confirmed that the fact that a colleague had previously been allowed to work nine-hour days (due to compelling personal circumstances) did not mean this employee’s request should automatically be granted.
Employer implications/action needed This court decision provides useful support for employers with internal policies limiting workday length to eight hours when refusing requests for alternative work hour distributions under the Flexible Working Act. Employers should ensure that such policies are documented (e.g., in a company handbook) and applied consistently. When refusing requests, employers should: (i) clearly explain the consequences of granting the request, (ii) explain why this leads to unacceptable or unresolvable problems, and (iii) demonstrate that these problems are sufficiently serious that the employee’s interest must yield to the employer’s interest. Offering reasonable alternatives (such as alternating four and five-day weeks or part-time arrangements) strengthens the employer’s position. Each request should be assessed individually, taking into account the specific circumstances of the employee and the role.
Employer risk The precedent risk argument can be invoked based on this judgment. However, it remains important to substantiate each refusal individually, as the threshold for demonstrating a compelling business interest under the Flexible Working Act is generally considered high. Where a refusal is not supported by sufficient business interests or where the employer fails to conduct an individual assessment, the employer risks being ordered by a court to comply with the employee’s request.
Increase of statutory minimum wage
Impact date: 1 July 2026 The minimum wage for employees aged 21 and over will be increased from €14.71 gross to €14.99 gross per hour, excluding the 8% statutory holiday allowance.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should ensure that their employees receive at least the statutory minimum wage and check whether salary levels required for certain exceptions (e.g. including holiday allowance in salary if salary equals 3x minimum wage) are still being met.
Employer risk Failing to pay the statutory minimum wage may result in wage claims from employees (including the statutory increase of 50%) and fines from the Labor Authority between €500 and €10,000 per employee. Additionally, this may have a negative effect on an employer’s reputation.
Act on Assessment of Employment Relationships and Legal Presumption (Clarification) Act
Impact date: 1 July 2026 (expected)
On 7 July 2025 the legislative proposal the Act on Assessment of Employment Relationships and Legal Presumption (Clarification) Act (VBAR) was submitted to the House of Representatives. On 21 April 2026, the House of Representatives adopted the VBAR. The Act has now been submitted to the Dutch Senate. The VBAR aims to clarify the distinction between employees and independent contractors, limit false self-employment, and legally anchor relevant case law. The VBAR proposal includes among other things:
- clearer criteria to distinguish between employees and independent contractors
- a legal presumption of employment in certain cases
- integration of relevant court rulings into statutory law
- introduction of a civil law presumption of an employment contract for workers who are currently self-employed with an hourly rate below €38
In response to significant criticism received on the draft legislation, and in an effort to prevent further delays, a decision was taken on 10 March 2026 to remove a portion of the proposed legislation relating to the substantive criteria for determining classification of employment. The only remaining element of this draft legislation is the introduction of a legal presumption of employment based on an hourly rate threshold. Under the current draft legislation, where an individual's hourly rate falls below €38 per hour, a presumption of an employment relationship will apply when assessing the worker's status.
The more detailed elaboration of the substantive criteria for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors is addressed in the Self-Employed Persons Act. However, both the timeline for this legislation and its precise content remain unclear at this stage.
Recent case law development:
On 27 January 2026, the Court of Appeal Amsterdam ruled that the drivers of Uber did not qualify as employees. The Court of Appeal held that the relevant drivers operated with a degree of entrepreneurship, which in the overall assessment outweighed the elements pointing towards an employment relationship.
The court attached particular importance to factors such as the level of investments made by the drivers, including vehicle acquisition and financing, the freedom to determine working hours, the possibility to use multiple platforms simultaneously, the strategic decision-making in accepting or rejecting rides, the variability of income, and the exposure to commercial risks such as liability and incapacity for work. The court confirmed that no single factor is decisive and that all circumstances must be assessed in their mutual context.
Importantly, the court emphasized that qualification remains highly fact-specific. It did not exclude that individual drivers, depending on their concrete circumstances, could still qualify as employees. A general or collective qualification is not possible where individual circumstances differ materially. This judgment reinforces that the distinction between employee and independent contractor continues to require a case-by-case analysis, even in platform-based working relationships.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should be aware of the risk(s) of misclassification when entering into new relationships with independent contractors.
Employer risk Where an independent contractor is deemed to be an employee, the employer risks the Dutch Tax Authority retrospectively imposing tax obligations and fines. Additionally, claims can be submitted to claim “employee rights” for up to the five previous years.
Pay Transparency Directive
Impact date: 1 January 2027 (expected at this time) The Dutch Government is currently working on new legislation to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive. The draft version of the legislation was sent to the Council of State, which issued its advice on the draft legislation on 1 April 2026. Currently the draft legislation has not yet been presented to the House of Representatives. In summary, the draft legislation introduces the following obligations for employers:
- employers should have pay/wage structures in place which are based on objective and gender-neutral criteria
- job applicants have the right to request and receive information from their (potential) future employer about the starting wage or its range. Employers are prohibited from asking applicants about their previous salary
- employers should provide their employees with easy access to the criteria used to determine remuneration. Employers with 50 or more employees must also provide easy access to the criteria used for wage development
- employees have the right to receive written information about their wage level and average wage level by gender for equal work. Employers will have to inform employees annually about this right and the steps the employees should take to exercise this right
- employers with 250+ employees should report annually on the wage gap. Employers with 100 to 249 employees should report every three years. Employers with less than 100 employees are not required to report
- if the wage report reveals an unjustified difference of at least 5% in the average wage of female and male employees performing equal (or equivalent) work, and this difference is not rectified within six months of submitting the report, employers are required to conduct a wage evaluation together with employee representatives
- employers should determine what is meant by work of equal value based on objective and gender-neutral criteria: skills, efforts, responsibilities and working conditions of employees
The Dutch Government intends to give the Works Council or Trade Unions (if involved) an important role in this process (including information and consent rights).
The Dutch Government has informally confirmed that the implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive will be delayed and is not expected before 1 January 2027. The government currently aims to submit the legislative proposal to Parliament in 2026. Furthermore, the Dutch government has confirmed that the reporting obligation for employers with 150 or more employees will first apply to the calendar year 2027 rather than 2026 due to the delayed implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive into Dutch law.
Employer implications/action needed If this proposed legislation is adopted, employers should ensure that they have an up to date job evaluation and classification system in place which is based on objective and gender-neutral criteria, equal pay for equal work or work of equal value is promoted and, where necessary, justified. Employers should also report on the average pay differences within their organization as well as differences between different categories of employees performing equal work or work of equal value (provided that they meet the applicable thresholds).
Employer risk The specific penalties will be detailed in forthcoming subordinate regulations. In case of non-compliance with this new legislation, it is expected that employers risk individual court proceedings or proceedings at the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights. Additionally, the Labor Inspectorate may impose penalties.
Temporary agency workers
Impact date: 1 January 2027. The Dutch Labor Supply Authority (Nederlandse Autoriteit Uitleenmarkt) will open the admission process prior to that date and compliance will be enforced from 1 January 2028. On 15 April 2025, the House of Representatives adopted the Provision of Personnel Admission Act (Wet toelating terbeschikkingstelling van arbeidskrachten, "Wtta"). The Wtta aims to improve the position of temporary agency workers and is designed to combat abuses within the temporary employment agency sector, addressing issues such as underpayment of wages, excessive working hours, illegal employment, non-payment of taxes, and labor exploitation and to create a level playing field for temporary agency companies that make temporary agency workers available to other companies.
The Senate adopted the Wtta on 11 November 2025, marking the completion of the legislative process. Consequently ,the Wtta will enter into force as scheduled.
The Wtta introduces a mandatory admission system for all temporary agency companies (and other companies) making temporary agency workers available under the Placement of Personnel by Intermediaries Act (Wet allocatie arbeidskrachten door intermediairs, "Waadi"). Under the new regime, the temporary agency companies must apply for admission. Once admitted, the company is permitted to provide temporary workers for a period of four years.
To obtain admission, temporary agency companies must satisfy several key requirements:
- registration in the Dutch Trade Register
- submission of a Certificate of Conduct ("VOG") for legal entities, with a new VOG required upon any change in directors or other key personnel
- payment of a financial security deposit of €100,000 to a designated administrator (starting temporary agency companies pay €50,000)
- proof of compliance with a set of quality standards to be established under secondary legislation (i.e. correct payment of wages and taxes)
The Wtta also allows for an exemption procedure for companies that supply workers only on a very limited basis.
In addition, the Wtta strengthens the duty of care for hirers of temporary agency workers. Both end users and any intermediaries involved in re-hiring will be obliged to verify through a public register whether the temporary agency company is properly admitted. Failure to do so, and hiring through a non-admitted supplier, can result in (high) fines for all parties involved.
Employer implications/action needed As of 1 January 2027, temporary agency companies (or other companies that make temporary agency workers available) can start with the admission process. These companies must submit their applications before 1 July 2027. As of January 1, 2028, companies hiring temporary workers will be required to verify through the public register whether the staffing agencies they work with are authorized.
Employer risk In the event of a violation by either the temporary agency company or the hiring company, the Labor Inspectorate may impose an administrative fine of up to €90,000 per violation. The specific fine amounts will be further detailed in policy regulation. The Labor Inspectorate can also suspend or withdraw the authorization in the event of serious misconduct.
Flexible Workers (Increased Security) Act
Impact date: 1 January 2027 (expected at this time). The Flexible Workers (Increased Security) Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 12 May 2026. The Act is now submitted to the Dutch Senate. Once in force, this Act will largely replace on-call contracts with “bandwidth contracts”, which are a new type of contract for a fixed or indefinite term, stating a minimum number of hours with a maximum of 130% of the minimum agreed working hours, for which employees will be scheduled and paid. There will be no obligation for employees to work outside the agreed working hours. An on-call contract will only be permitted for students, and for temporary agency workers only during the first 52 weeks.
The Act also proposes that the break between consecutive contracts that resets the maximum chain of fixed term employment agreements will be increased from six months to three years. This means that the last employment contract in the chain of contracts will be deemed an indefinite term contract if the aggregate duration is longer than three years, with breaks between contracts of three years or less included, or more than three fixed-term employment agreements have been entered into with breaks of no more than 36 months between them.
In addition, the proposal introduces important changes with regard to the employment conditions of temporary agency workers. The current starting point remains that agency workers are entitled to the same employment conditions, including salary and allowances, as employees in equal or equivalent positions employed directly by the hirer. Under the current framework, deviation by collective agreement is possible and has resulted in the so-called “hirer’s remuneration” system applying in practice.
Under the new proposal, deviation by collective agreement will remain possible, but only if this is laid down in the collective agreement of the temporary work agency and provided that the total package of essential employment conditions is at least equivalent to that of comparable employees at the hirer. Essential employment conditions, including salary and other financial components, must therefore be equal or at least equivalent in overall value. A shortfall in essential employment conditions cannot be compensated by more favorable non-essential conditions.
Furthermore, with respect to non-essential employment conditions, agency workers will be entitled to at least equivalent conditions as employees in equal or equivalent roles employed by the hirer. The precise interpretation of what qualifies as “equivalent” will require further clarification in practice and may give rise to interpretative discussions.
Employer implications/action needed If the legislative proposal is adopted, employers will need to replace all on-call contracts with bandwidth contracts (other than for students and seasonal workers) and employers are advised to keep records of fixed term employees for at least three years after the end of employment, to keep track of whether an employee can return on a temporary basis or only on the basis of an indefinite term employment contract.
Employer risk If the legislative proposal is adopted, employers will risk (wage) claims if the wrong contract is used. If employers do not take into account breaks between contracts of three years or less, they risk a fixed term contract converting to an indefinite term contract.
Compensation severance payment limited to small employers only
Impact date: 1 January 2027 Currently, in the event of an employment contract being terminated due to long-term illness, all Dutch employers can request from the UWV (the Dutch Governmental body) a compensation payment equal to the statutory severance payment calculated until the day after the day on which the employee had been ill for 104 weeks.
Draft legislation has been published that limits this compensation to small employers only. The legislative proposal has been submitted to the House of Representatives on 10 December 2025. Once this legislation has been adopted by the House of Representatives and the Senate, only employers who are classified as “small” by the Tax Authority will remain eligible for this compensation.
Employer implications/action needed Once in force, employers who are not classified as “small” by the Tax Authority will no longer be entitled to request compensation from the UWV where an employment contract is terminated due to long-term illness.
Employer risk N/A
Non-competition clauses
Impact date: Awaited Draft legislation has been published which will significantly change the rules for using non-competition (and business relations) restrictions.
In summary, the changes include:
- non-competition restrictions shall be limited in duration to maximum one year after termination of employment
- non-competition clauses should include a geographical scope
- all employment contracts including a non-competition clause must state the justification to impose the restriction
- employers shall invoke the non-competition clause at least one month before termination of the employment contract if they intend to enforce the clause
- employers shall pay compensation equal to 50% of the most recently earned monthly salary for each month that the employee will be bound by the clause unless a higher compensation has been agreed
Employer implications/action needed Employers should continue to monitor the progress of the proposal. If it is adopted, employers will need to ensure that non-competition (and business relations) clauses concluded with employees are compliant with the new requirements.
Employer risk Once in force, in the event that non-competition (and business relations) clauses do not meet the new requirements, such restrictive covenants will be deemed invalid and will not be able to be invoked.
Contacts
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.