News

Imagine: an employee falls ill, you continue to pay her salary as usual, but it turns out that she also has two full-time jobs and occasional work elsewhere. Formally, that amounts to around 120 hours per week. This happened to an employer in a recent ruling by the Amsterdam District Court.

In this case, the employee already had a full-time job (40 hours) and took on two additional full-time jobs with other employers, plus occasional work for a university. Shortly thereafter, she reported sick to her first employer and later to the other two as well. She received wages during her illness and sickness benefits from all of those employers.

The employer attempted to offset the wages paid against that other income via the rules on continued payment of wages in the event of illness, but the subdistrict court did not agree. The additional income already existed before the sick leave was reported and was therefore not covered by that offset arrangement.

That was not the end of the matter. The subdistrict court judge classified the concealment of the side jobs (and later providing incorrect information) as a serious breach of good employment practices. Freedom of choice in employment is all well and good, but three full-time jobs at the same time exceed the limits of the Working Hours Act and reasonableness. The judge ultimately awarded the employer damages of € 73.285,20, based on the additional income and sickness benefits that the employee had received in addition to her continued salary.

Why is this relevant?

It is not only contractual provisions that count; general standards such as “good employment practices” can also provide guidance when employees conceal secondary employment and you suffer financial loss as a result.

Practical tips:

• Stipulate in employment contracts and/or staff handbooks that secondary employment must always be reported in writing in advance, including the number of hours worked.
• When employees report sick, actively and explicitly ask about other jobs and record the answers in the file.
• Involve the company doctor in questions about work capacity if you suspect that someone is working elsewhere during illness.

Do you have doubts about an employee with multiple jobs or a difficult sick report? Please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, or Elke Hofman.

You can read the ruling here. 

In its ruling of October 17, 2025, the Midden-Nederland District Court ruled that a landlord is not automatically liable if a tenant uses the rented property in violation of laws and regulations. 

This ruling concerned an apartment that was being used for a sex business without the necessary permit. The municipality had received a report about possible prostitution in an apartment. After an inspection, it appeared that a sex business was indeed being operated in the apartment without the necessary permit. Both the mayor and the municipal executive therefore imposed an order subject to a penalty on the landlords of the apartment. 

The question that had to be answered by the court was whether the landlords could be regarded as functional perpetrators in this case. Established case law of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State stipulates that a person is a functional perpetrator if they had control over the violation and accepted that violation, for example by not preventing the violation when they could have done so. 

The court ruled that the landlords had control over the use of the property because they were the owners. They therefore had control over the violation. 

However, the violation was not accepted by the landlords, or at least the municipality had not provided sufficient evidence of this. The municipality based its case on reports from which it was unclear who had made them, when, and how, which meant that the only thing that could be established was that the sex business had been operated from the property for a period of two weeks. In addition, the court also ruled that the landlords had actively supervised the property and had no reason to expect that the apartment would be used illegally. 

The court therefore ruled that the landlords had been wrongly designated as functional perpetrators and that the order subject to a penalty for non-compliance should not have been imposed on them. 

This ruling underscores that a landlord is not automatically responsible for what a tenant does and that the concept of functional perpetration is therefore not unlimited. 

You can read the ruling here. 

This time, it's not a light-hearted blog, but one you really should read! 

You've probably already seen it. The Senate has passed the bill ‘Wet toelating terbeschikkingstelling van arbeidskrachten’ (Wtta) (an extension of the Waadi). 

This law will have major consequences for temporary employment agencies, secondment companies, other lenders, and hirers, because a licensing requirement will apply. The new rules are set to take effect on January 1, 2027. 

What does this mean in concrete terms?

Companies that want to continue to supply workers must register with the Dutch Temporary Employment Market Authority (NAU) in good time. This registration is mandatory in order to obtain a permit (with some exceptions). The Labor Inspectorate is expected to start enforcing the rules from January 1, 2028. Anyone who continues to operate without a license (or valid exemption) risks a fine — not only the lender, but also the hirer who takes on staff. In short, check in good time whether you need to take action. If you are not a temporary employment agency (and are not covered by a collective labor agreement for temporary employment), but do sometimes hire out employees, for example as a secondment agency or payroll company, you still need to check whether you need to take action in the coming year. If you are covered by the Waadi, you are also covered by the Wtta. Contracting and contracting out of work (i.e., if the management and supervision of employees does not lie with the client) are not covered by this in any case. Please note: in practice, the distinction between lending and contracting is often a subject of debate. 

To obtain a license, the lender must, among other things:

• Be registered with the Chamber of Commerce;
• Submit a Certificate of Good Conduct (VOG), which checks whether the company and its directors have any criminal offenses to their name.
• Demonstrate that the organization complies with existing labor and wage legislation (e.g., payment of the minimum wage; the SNA quality mark is also important here);
• Paying a deposit of € 100.000,00 (or € 50.000,00 for small or start-up lenders), unless you are covered by transitional law; and
• Ensuring that workers are correctly registered in the Personal Records Database (BRP). 

Lenders have until July 1, 2027, to apply for a license. 

Transitional arrangement

Under transitional law, approximately 80% of existing companies are not required to pay a deposit. This applies to companies (and private individuals) that have been registered in the Commercial Register for more than four years. Please note: you must still meet the other conditions. Anyone wishing to make use of transitional law must report to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment between November 1, 2026, and January 1, 2027. The security deposit is intended to prevent so-called volatile entrepreneurship—situations in which unscrupulous lenders close their businesses as soon as supervision or debts threaten, only to continue under a new name.

Exceptions                                                                                 

The law also provides for exceptions for:

• non-profit collegial lending (such as the temporary lending of healthcare workers between healthcare institutions during peak periods in exchange for wage costs);
• intra-group arrangements, whereby employees are loaned within the same group;
• security and investigation companies requiring a license, BBL programs, and social development companies;
• companies that only provide workers “to a limited extent,” such as consultancy firms (they can apply for an exemption). 

Foreign lenders can also apply for an exemption under certain conditions. 

Purpose of the law
The Wtta aims to provide better protection for employees, particularly migrant workers. Stricter licensing and supervision will tackle abuse and exploitation in the temporary employment sector and create a level playing field between bona fide and rogue lenders.

Are you unsure whether your organization will need a license or whether it falls under an exception? Or would you like to know what steps you need to take and when?

Please contact one of our employment lawyers: Dennis Oud, Elke Hofman, or Tessa Sipkema.

Read the legislative proposal here. 

Can an employee follow his own course if his employment contract says otherwise? In this case before the Breda Subdistrict Court, that discussion got out of hand. The employee was listed on paper as an office worker, but continued to behave as a “theme specialist” and spent a lot of time on drawings and theme proposals. Despite several discussions, this did not change. The result: a disrupted working relationship, according to the employer.

In this case, the court ruled in favor of the employer. The decisive factor was the structural mismatch between the job description and the employee's actions, compounded by friction in communication and customer contact regarding the suspension. The isolated incidents that the employer also cited as grounds for dismissal for “(serious) culpable conduct” were not considered serious enough by the subdistrict court: the € 71,78 spent on fuel with the company card was immediately reimbursed, the keys were returned, and an incorrect job title on LinkedIn is not in itself decisive. The termination was therefore based on a disrupted working relationship.

What is unusual about this case is that the employer apparently rejected the employee's offer of mediation, but this did not prevent the termination. The ruling states that the employee did not revisit this issue. With a company of approximately nine people, redeployment was not a realistic option. The employee's sick leave did not prevent the termination, because the request was not motivated by that illness.

The outcome was therefore a termination of the employment contract. The employee received a transition payment, but other claims, such as fair compensation, were rejected.

Tip: draw up a clear job profile with tasks and responsibilities and also record any changes. This will prevent discussions.

Read the ruling here.

If you have any questions about the ruling, please contact Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, or Dennis Oud.

Enforcement by administrative bodies often concerns compliance with permits or legislation and regulations. Normally, this only concerns applicable regulations and rules, but can this be enforcement based on the base of outdated permits or regulations?

This issue was raised in a case before the Limburg District Court. The plaintiff experienced noise pollution from the adjacent building. He therefore submitted an enforcement request to the municipality, because he believed that the regulations from a 1992 permit had not been complied with, which would cause the noise pollution.

The municipal executive rejected the enforcement request because the building regulations referred to in the permit no longer exist. According to the municipal executive, enforcement based on outdated regulations is not possible. The court disagreed and ruled that, in principle, it is possible to enforce a permit requirement from an old building permit, even if that permit requirement refers to requirements from a building regulation that is no longer in force. Instead of immediately rejecting the enforcement request, the council should have investigated what the requirements of the building regulation were and whether the current construction meets the old requirements. Because the council failed to do so, it could not conclude that there was no violation and therefore could not simply reject the enforcement request.

So please note: if laws and regulations no longer apply, this does not mean that enforcement of compliance with them is excluded.

You can read the ruling here. 

Sick on the same day that the resignation request was submitted to the UWV, but still no prohibition on termination? How is that possible?

On May 6, 2025, at 2:36 p.m., the well-known shoe brand Crocs submitted a dismissal application to the UWV for (among others) an HR Business Partner. That same evening, at 7:54 p.m., the employee reported sick after a fall. She got out of the car after returning home from work and lost her balance. The next day, she was informed that her position had been terminated.

The UWV rejected Crocs' dismissal application due to the prohibition of termination during illness. After all, the sick report was made on the same day as the dismissal application. According to the UWV, case law and parliamentary documents indicate that the prohibition of termination during illness applies in this case.

The subdistrict court judge disagreed.

The literal text of the law states that the prohibition on dismissal does not apply if the incapacity for work commenced after the dismissal form was received by the UWV. Who determines this? Not the UWV, nor the court. The company doctor is the one who determines the date on which the incapacity for work commenced and is the only one who can and may express an opinion on this. This worked out in the employer's favor. The company doctor determined that the first day of illness was May 7, 2025. Why? That is not entirely clear from the ruling, but it does correspond with the employee's sick report that evening. She wrote in her email: “I will unfortunately be unable to attend tomorrow's meeting and must call in sick.” In other words, she reported sick for the following day. Since her incapacity for work only began after the A form had been submitted, the prohibition on termination did not apply.

The reorganization was sufficiently substantiated by Crocs, the employment contract was terminated, and the employee only received the transition allowance. The requested fair compensation of more than €555,000.00 was not granted.

It is important for employers to remember that dismissal is not necessarily futile if an employee reports sick (for a longer period) on the same day that the dismissal application is submitted.

Have a company doctor determine the first day of incapacity for work. A difference of five hours can make the difference between a rejection and a termination.

You can read the ruling here.