Hiring agency workers: maximum of 3 years and further protection on the way

Hiring agency workers: maximum of 3 years and further protection on the way 

In 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that the hiring of agency workers must be temporary. But how long is ‘temporary’? That question was recently answered by the District Court of The Hague (in Dutch). The ruling shows that the long-term use of agency workers – which is therefore no longer ‘temporary’ – can have significant legal consequences for the hirer, i.e. the party where the agency worker is actually working and which acts as the de facto employer. 

More than 7 years ≠ ‘temporary’

In this case, an agency worker had worked continuously for more than seven years through OTTO Workforce at Albert Heijn distribution centres. When the assignment was terminated, the agency worker argued that an employment agreement for an indefinite period with AH existed. The agency worker argued that AH had abused the agency work regime by allowing him to work continuously as an agency worker for such a long period, without offering him an employment agreement. According to the agency worker, the assignment no longer had a temporary character.

The District Court ruled in favour of the agency worker: a continuous assignment of more than seven years can no longer be considered temporary. The specific circumstances brought up by AH, such as staff shortages, a complex logistics operation, mechanisation of the distribution centres, language requirements and dependence on the use of migrant workers, did not constitute an objective justification for the long-term assignment.

To remedy the consequences of the abuse, the District Court ruled that the parties had to be placed in a legal position that reflects the factual situation as it was. This means that AH was deemed to have entered into an employment agreement with the agency worker at some point, and that this employment agreement qualifies as one for an indefinite period.

This represents a departure form earlier national case law, according to which an assignment relationship cannot be ‘silently’ replaced by an employment agreement (Dutch Supreme Court 5 April 2002, ECLI:NL:HR2002:AD8186, ABN AMRO/Malhi). In this case, the District Court considered that there was sufficient reason for this departure.

‘Temporary’ = maximum of 36 months

Notably, in determining the moment at which the employment agreement came into existence, the District Court aligned with the statutory ‘chain rule’. According to the District Court, after a continuous period of 36 months, an assignment can reasonably no longer be regarded as temporary. After those 36 months, an employment agreement for an indefinite period therefore came into existence between the agency worker and AH.

The consequences for AH as hirer and now employer are significant. The District Court held that AH’s termination of the assignment qualifies as an “unlawful termination” by AH. In other words, AH was not allowed to simply terminate the assignment, as this was contrary to the ‘closed’ dismissal system. The employee must be allowed to resume his work and is entitled to back pay. The employee must also be registered retroactively with the pension fund.

Further protection on the way

With the 36-month period, the District Court also aligns with an announced, but still expected, legislative proposal from the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment, which would introduce a maximum hiring period of 36 months.

The ruling also fits within a broader development in which flexible work, including agency work, is being further regulated. On 12 May 2026, the Dutch House of Representatives adopted the legislative proposal More Security for Flexible Workers. This law would aim to give employees with flexible employment agreements more security regarding income and working hours.

We have previously published articles on this proposal, which you can read here and here. Following several amendments, the core elements of the current version of the bill are as follows.

The starting point will be that fixed-term employment agreements are intended only for temporary work. In addition, after three fixed-term agreement, no new fixed-term agreement may be agreed for a period of three years. At present, this “interruption period” is six months.

In addition, on-call agreements, such as zero-hours agreements, will be abolished and replaced by so-called ‘bandwidth contracts’. Under a bandwidth contract, a minimum and maximum number of hours are agreed, with the maximum not exceeding 130% of the minimum.

Specifically for agency workers, the act would mean that they must receive at least equivalent employment conditions to employees who are directly employed. The agency phase during which agency workers have limited security will also be shortened from one and a half years to one year.

If the Senate approves the proposal, the law may enter into force on 1 January 2028.

Employers and hirers: take note!

For employers and hirers, these developments send an important signal: map out how long agency workers have been working within your organisation, assess whether their deployment is still temporary, and properly document any objective reasons for long-term assignments. Also review the agreements with staffing agencies, particularly in the event that it is later found that an employment agreement has arisen between the agency worker and the hirer.