Eveline Bakker

Can an employer require employees to work from the office at least two days a week? The recent court ruling concerning Booking.com has sparked considerable debate. For many, the answer seems obvious: surely requiring two days of office attendance is entirely reasonable? Legally, however, the issue is more nuanced. When the works council (OR) refuses to consent to a proposed decision, the court must assess whether the employer’s interests outweigh those of the works council. And it is precisely this aspect of the ruling that raises questions. Just how convincing is the balancing of interests carried out by the subdistrict court?

As an employer, you can choose to bear the financial risks associated with sickness and incapacity for work of current and former employees yourself. This is known as self-insurance. This option can be financially attractive and gives you greater control over the reintegration of current and former employees. At the same time, self-insurance entails responsibilities and risks. What exactly does self-insurance for Sickness Benefits (Ziektewet) and WGA benefits involve? What are the advantages, and what pitfalls should employers be aware of? In this blog, we explain how self-insurance works and what you need to consider.

The Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (the “Enterprise Chamber”) delivered its ruling on 28 April 2026 in a case brought by the Temporary Works Council (the “TOR”) of the Identification and Screening of Asylum Seekers Service (Dienst Identificatie en Screening Asielzoekers, “DISA”) (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:1105). The Enterprise Chamber ruled that the TOR had no right to be consulted on the decision to treat the reorganisations at DISA and the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) as separate processes, without transferring personnel between them. According to the Enterprise Chamber, the decision concerned the allocation of public-law responsibilities between government services and therefore fell within the scope of the political primacy principle set out in Article 46d of the Dutch Works Councils Act (Wet op de ondernemingsraden, or WOR). Notably, however, the Enterprise Chamber described the decision-making process as “highly careless”. This finding did not lead to a different legal conclusion.