In 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that the use of agency workers must be temporary. However, until recently, there was little clarity around how long an arrangement could continue before it ceased to be considered “temporary”.

A recent decision by the District Court of The Hague has provided guidance for employers. The decision shows that the long-term use of agency workers – which is therefore no longer ‘temporary’ – may have significant legal consequences for the hirer, including the risk that an indefinite employment relationship may be deemed to exist between the worker and the hirer.

In this case, an agency worker had worked continuously for more than seven years through OTTO Workforce at distribution centres operated by Albert Heijn (AH). When the assignment was terminated, the agency worker argued that an indefinite employment agreement existed with AH. The agency worker claimed that AH had improperly relied on the agency work regime by allowing him to continue working as an agency worker for a long term, without offering direct employment. According to the agency worker, the assignment was no longer ‘temporary’.

The District Court ruled in favour of the agency worker, finding that a continuous assignment of more than seven years can no longer be considered temporary. The specific circumstances raised 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 address what it considered misuse of the agency work framework, the District Court held that the legal position should reflect the reality of the working relationship in practice. As a result, AH was deemed to have entered into an employment agreement with the agency worker, which the court found to be an indefinite employment relationship.

This represents a departure from earlier Dutch case law, which generally held that an agency work arrangement could not simply become an employment relationship by implication alone.

Notably, in determining the point at which the employment relationship came into existence, the District Court aligned with the statutory ‘chain rule’. Under Dutch employment law, this rule limits the duration of successive fixed-term contracts before they convert into permanent employment.

According to the District Court, after a continuous period of 36 months, an assignment can no longer reasonably be regarded as temporary. As a result, an indefinite employment agreement was deemed to have arisen between the agency worker and AH after 36 months.

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”. This meant AH was not entitled to simply terminate the assignment, as doing so was inconsistent with the Dutch dismissal framework. The employee must be allowed to resume his work and is entitled to back pay and to registration (retroactively) with the pension fund.

The ruling aligns with broader legislative reforms in the Netherlands. On 12 May 2026, the Dutch House of Representatives adopted the legislative proposal More Security for Flexible Workers. The proposed reforms would introduce a maximum hiring period of 36 months for agency workers and form part of a wider effort to strengthen protections for workers in flexible employment arrangements.

These reforms would also require that agency workers receive employment conditions at least equivalent to employees who are directly employed. The agency phase during which agency workers have limited security will also be shortened from 18 months to 12 months.

If the proposal is approved by the Senate, the law may enter into force on 1 January 2028.

For further information on these reforms that form part of the proposed More Security for Flexible Workers Act, please refer to this article.

• Employers and hirers using agency workers should review how long workers have been engaged within their organisation and assess whether those arrangements can still genuinely be characterised as temporary.
• Organisations relying on long-term agency worker arrangements should ensure there is clear documentation supporting any objective justification for extended assignments.
• Employers should also review contractual arrangements with staffing agencies, particularly in circumstances where there is a risk that a direct employment relationship could later be found to exist.
• The decision reflects a broader trend in the Netherlands towards tighter regulation of flexible work arrangements and increased protections for agency workers.
• Businesses using agency workers or other flexible workers as part of long-term workforce planning should monitor the progress of the proposed More Security for Flexible Workers Act closely.