Can an employer require employees to return to the office more often?

Yes, as shown by an interesting ruling by the Amsterdam District Court on October 28, 2026. The district court judge ruled that Booking.com may require its employees to spend at least 40% of their working hours in the office, despite the fact that the works council (OR) did not agree to this.

Booking already had a hybrid work policy in place, under which employees were encouraged to be present at the office for at least 40% of their working hours. In practice, however, it turned out that only 27% of employees actually complied with this recommendation. Booking therefore decided to make office attendance mandatory.

The Works Council refused to agree to this, citing, among other things, the additional travel time, travel expenses, and the negative consequences the requirement could have on employees’ work-life balance and health. The small claims court ruled in Booking’s favor. According to the court, Booking undoubtedly has a legitimate interest in requiring physical presence at the office. Regular in-person gatherings of employees can contribute to better collaboration, knowledge sharing, innovation, and a sense of community. The fact that not all of these benefits can be substantiated with hard scientific data does not, in the court’s view, detract from this conclusion.

The subdistrict court judge emphasizes that employees are paid to devote their time to the assigned work. Pursuant to its right to issue instructions (Article 7:660 of the Dutch Civil Code), the employer may also specify the location where such work is to be performed. The fact that employees incur additional travel time and expenses or are less available for caregiving responsibilities due to the mandatory office presence does not, in this case, outweigh Booking’s reasonable interest in having employees meet regularly at the office. Another factor is that the employees were hired with Amsterdam as their place of work, and Booking never indicated that employees could work entirely from home.

It is also noteworthy that the subdistrict court ruled that Booking does not have to demonstrate that the policy change is necessary. The key issue is whether Booking can reasonably make the decision. Nor is Booking required to extensively examine or refute every alternative proposed by the Works Council. However, the subdistrict court does attach importance to the extensive and careful consultation process, during which Booking - in response to the Works Council’s input - reduced the proposed attendance requirement from 50 to 60% to 40%, among other measures.

What does this ruling mean for employers? The ruling confirms that employers have the discretion to tighten their work-from-home policies and require employees to spend part of their working hours in the office. In doing so, factors such as collaboration, knowledge sharing, and team cohesion may carry significant weight, even when employees prefer to work from home. However, a careful balancing of interests, consideration of special individual circumstances, and the applicable employee participation rights remain important.

Incidentally, the fact that Booking may require its employees to work at least 40% of their time in the office does not mean that employees automatically have the right to work the remaining 60% from home. Above all, the ruling confirms the discretion employers have to shape their own work-from-home policies within the applicable limits.

You can read the ruling here.