From home to office: the legal ground rules for working from home

Employment Law

15 October 2026

From home to office: the legal ground rules for working from home

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

Tightening a working-from-home policy sounds like a management decision, but in practice it turns out to be less simple. This is clear from the proceedings Booking.com is conducting against its works council (hereinafter: the works council), and from a recent ruling on working from abroad.[1] Both cases show that employers who want to reduce the number of days employees work from home run into a fair number of obstacles.

Booking.com follows the rules, and still nothing is certain

Booking.com wants the 7,000 employees at its Amsterdam head office to work at the office at least two days a week. The works council did not consent, which is why the matter is now before the subdistrict court, where Booking.com has requested substitute consent. The two office days have been a recommendation since 2022, but part of the workforce has ignored that advice for years. What matters is that an employment condition does not only arise on paper: the actual practice is decisive. This can even lead to a successful claim to an acquired right. And that is exactly the issue many employers run into.

In cases involving laptop manufacturer Asus[2] and machine builder Caterpillar[3], the courts already ruled that the number of working-from-home days could not be reduced without consulting the works council. A working-from-home scheme qualifies as a scheme in the area of working conditions, and under the Dutch Works Councils Act (WOR), changing it requires the consent of the works council.

Smaller organisation, same pitfall

Smaller organisations that do not have a works council but do have a staff representative body (PVT) will need to ask the PVT for consent. If there is no PVT either, the individual consent of the employee is required, or the change must be imposed unilaterally on the basis of a unilateral amendment clause in the employment contract. But successfully relying on such a clause is not that easy. The court will assess whether the employer’s interest in the change outweighs the employee’s interest.

Years of tolerance can lead to an acquired right

The court recently ruled on such an individual case[4]. In 2020, an employee was permitted to carry out his work from Ecuador as well. Because of the coronavirus pandemic, he stayed there longer than planned, and from 2022 onwards he worked mainly from Ecuador. In 2023, the employer then introduced a workations policy. At the end of 2024, the employee was told that working from Ecuador was no longer intended, had to be phased out, and that he had to comply with the workations policy.

The employee took the matter to court and was proven right. Working from home in Ecuador had become part of his terms of employment, given that it had continued for years. A unilateral change to that employment condition is only possible if the employer’s interest outweighs the employee’s interest, and in the court’s opinion that was not the case. The employee may therefore continue to work from Ecuador.

If your organisation does not have a fixed working-from-home policy, but employees have been working from home for some time, this may have become an acquired right, even if it is not set out in the employment contract. Such a right cannot simply be reversed.

______________________________________________________________________

[1] District Court of Midden-Nederland, 28 November 2025, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:6719

[2] District Court of Amsterdam, 3 June 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:3782

[3] District Court of Oost-Brabant, 15 September 2025, ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2025:5758

[4] District Court of Midden-Nederland, 28 November 2025, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:6719

Need help with your working-from-home policy?

Start by mapping out what has actually been happening for years. Who works from home on how many days, has this ever been recorded and enforced, and is there a real risk that this has by now become an acquired right?

We are happy to help you draw up a working-from-home scheme or amendment clause that will stand up to challenge. In doing so, we substantiate the compelling interest in concrete terms, because general statements about team building or productivity are not always enough. Where necessary, we also guide the conversation with employees themselves, so that a change is implemented as carefully as possible.

Feel free to contact us at info@thelegalcompany.nl or call 020-3450152.

Blog by our employment law expert Celine Sup LL.M.

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.