When HQ says “Back to the office”: Dutch works councils and the right of consent

From remote work to “back to the office”

Due to Covid‑19, remote and hybrid work has become normal in the Netherlands. Many organisations have formalised it in policies and individual agreements. Statistics place the Netherlands among European Union countries with the highest share of regular home workers. Recently, however, multinationals have started to tighten these arrangements. Driven by global policies on productivity, culture, and onboarding, corporate headquarters are increasingly asking local entities to move towards more – or even exclusively – fixed office days. In the Netherlands, these instructions cannot be implemented unilaterally; often the works council must be involved.

Dutch works councils and the right of consent

Under the Dutch Works Councils Act, the works council has a right of consent for important changes to working conditions and arrangements that affect employees’ health and wellbeing. Remote and hybrid work policies directly influence commuting time, working hours and work-life balance, and therefore the psychosocial workload. As a result, introducing, changing, or withdrawing such policies often requires the works council’s prior consent, in addition to any individual employment law considerations.

Recent Dutch cases on return‑to‑office policies

Two recent decisions involving Asus Europe and Caterpillar Work Tools illustrate this in practice. In both cases, multinationals tried to move from a flexible or hybrid model towards substantially more office presence, relying on global “return to office” directions from HQ. The Dutch courts ruled that these measures could not simply be framed as temporary Covid lockdown arrangements that had expired, and that they had become part of the regular working conditions of the employees. Because of their impact on employees’ daily lives, changes to these arrangements fell within the scope of the works council’s right of consent. In one case, the withdrawal of the home‑working scheme was declared invalid; in the other, the court refused to grant substitute approval.

Practical implications 

For international employers, the message is straightforward: global HR strategies must be translated into the Dutch participation framework. Before announcing stricter office presence requirements, organisations should check what has been agreed locally on remote work, and whether the Dutch works council (when present) has the right of consent. Resorting to the courts to request substitute approval is possible, but the threshold is high and the outcome uncertain.

Key takeaways 

• A global “return to office” instruction does not automatically apply in the Netherlands.
• Remote and hybrid work policies are treated as “working conditions”, and often fall under the works council’s right of consent. Without this consent, the policy may be declared invalid and cannot be implemented.
• Courts consider the impact on commuting time and work-life balance when assessing disputes regarding return-to-office policies.
• It is important to note that even if the works council agrees with the change in policy, Dutch employees still need to accept this individually.
• Involving the works council and obtaining Dutch legal advice at an early stage is usually more effective than relying on top‑down implementation or litigation.

---

Ruud Olde is Attorney-at-law, specialised in Employment Law. Among others, he deals with co-determination and collective bargaining processes, reorganisations and individual dismissals. He also advises on terms and conditions of employment, working conditions, liability and contracts.