Employees unable to return to the Netherlands due to the war in the Middle East: is the employer required to continue paying wages?

Introduction

Images of (well-known) Dutch nationals sheltering in parking garages in Dubai are likely to have caught your attention in the news. On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel attacked Iran. Shortly thereafter, airspace in parts of the region was largely closed, with only a limited number of flights permitted.

Many Dutch nationals are currently stranded in the region and unable to return home. A parallel can be drawn with the COVID-19 period, during which employees suddenly found themselves unable to attend work because they were abroad due to infection or closed borders. As a result, the discussion regarding the obligation to continue paying wages has resurfaced.

This article briefly outlines how such situations may be approached. It also addresses the current status of the proposed legislation: the Workforce Retention in Crisis Act (Wet personeelsbehoud bij crisis, Wpc).

Legal framework

Since 2020, it is the rule that the employer must continue paying wages even if the employee does not perform work. This obligation only lapses if the failure to work can reasonably be attributed to the employee. The key question, therefore, is in whose sphere of risk the inability to work primarily lies.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts distinguished between two situations. Employees who unexpectedly became stranded abroad generally retained their right to wages. However, if an employee travelled to a country for which a negative travel advisory was already in place, it was assumed that the employee had taken an increased risk, and the wage risk typically lay with the employee.

A similar approach appears appropriate in the current situation. To the extent that employees are staying in countries (such as the United Arab Emirates or Qatar) where travel advice changed after their arrival, the wage risk will in principle lie with the employer. This may differ for employees who travelled to countries for which a negative travel advisory already applied, such as Iran.

The question is whether case law in this new context will come to the same allocation of risk.

What to do as an employer?

In case an employee is unable to return, employers may assess whether the employee can (temporarily) perform work remotely, or at least remain available for work by telephone or digital means. In addition, employers and employees may agree, by mutual consent, on arrangements such as a combination of continued wage payment and the use of paid or unpaid leave. Such arrangements may contribute to a reasonable distribution of the consequences of this exceptional situation.

Long-term impact of the war

If the consequences for employers become more far-reaching, an organisation may face serious financial difficulties.

These consequences may potentially be mitigated if the proposed  Wpc is implemented. Under this proposal, the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment may activate a scheme in exceptional situations, such as war, where there has been an average loss of at least 20% of labour capacity over a two-month period within one or more employers.

In such cases, employers may receive temporary support when confronted with a sudden and significant loss of work that falls outside normal business risk. The scheme may be applied for a maximum of six months.

The (proposed) scheme includes two key instruments. First, employees may temporarily perform other suitable work within the organisation, while their wages continue to be paid in full. Secondly, partial wage payment combined with a wage subsidy becomes possible: for non-worked hours, the employer pays 90% of the wages, while part of the wage costs may be compensated through a subsidy from the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV). In this way, the financial impact of a crisis is shared between employer, employee and the government.

On 9 February 2026, the Council of State issued its opinion on the proposed legislation. While it acknowledges the need for support during crises, it raises questions about the suitability of the scheme for large-scale crises. The proposal has therefore not yet been submitted to the House of Representatives, and it remains uncertain when and in what form the scheme will be introduced.

Conclusion

The current situation in the Middle East may give rise to employment law questions.

For the time being, it seems appropriate to follow the line established during the COVID-19 period with regard to wage risk: where employees unexpectedly become stranded abroad, the obligation to continue paying wages will in principle remain in place. This may differ where employees knowingly travel to high-risk areas, or where the war begins to have economic consequences for the business.

Should you have any questions following this article, we would of course be happy to assist you.