30 Oct '26
Hybrid working is now standard practice for many employers. But what happens when an employer wants employees to come into the office more often and the works council does not consent? Booking.com put that question to the Amsterdam District Court. Many employers and employees were following the case with interest. The court has now provided an answer: on 28 October 2026, it granted permission in place of the works council’s consent to introduce a requirement for employees to spend at least 40% of their working time in the office. This generally means two days a week.
The ruling (which can be found here in Dutch) is relevant to employers, employees and works councils alike. How much scope does an employer have to require office attendance when the works council does not consent?
First, the facts of the Booking.com case. Since 2023, Booking.com had recommended that employees spend at least 40% of their working time in the office. In practice, this had not produced the intended results: between the third quarter of 2024 and the third quarter of 2025, only 27% of employees followed the recommendation. Booking.com therefore wanted to make office attendance mandatory and asked its works council for consent. The aim was to strengthen the company culture, connections between colleagues, knowledge sharing and collaboration between teams. Employee training and development were also factors.
The works council did not consent to the proposal. It argued that the objectives were not sufficiently substantiated and that Booking.com had not shown why the change was necessary. It also pointed to the disadvantages for employees, including additional commuting time and costs, possible effects on caring responsibilities and health, and a shortage of workspace on busy days. The works council also questioned how office attendance would be monitored.
Under Article 27(4) of the Dutch Works Councils Act, the court may grant permission in place of the works council’s consent if the council’s refusal is unreasonable, or if compelling organisational, economic or workplace-related social reasons require the decision.
The court described Booking.com’s interest as “undoubtedly a reasonable interest”. In the court’s view, regular face-to-face contact with colleagues can improve collaboration, coordination and mutual trust. It can also help new employees receive guidance and encourage the exchange of ideas. The fact that not all these benefits had been conclusively established by scientific evidence did not alter that assessment.
The court also considered the consultation process with the works council. Booking.com had reduced its original proposal of 50–60% office attendance to 40% and had given the works council an opportunity to contribute its views. The court found that the consultation had been conducted with sufficient care. Booking.com did not have to show that the measure was strictly necessary. The question was whether it could reasonably make the decision.
The disadvantages for employees were not decisive. The court found that additional commuting time and costs, and possible restrictions on caring responsibilities, did not outweigh Booking.com’s interest. Booking.com must, however, ensure that enough workspaces are available where needed and that office attendance is spread across the working week.
In short, the court concluded that Booking.com’s interest outweighed the works council’s objections. The works council’s refusal to consent to the new policy was therefore unreasonable, and the court granted permission in place of that consent.
The ruling supports the view that mandatory office attendance can be justified. It does not, however, give employers a blanket right to require employees to come into the office at least two days a week. What is reasonable depends on the specific circumstances within the organisation.
Working from home may also be a term of employment that still needs to be changed, whether by agreement or unilaterally. Consent from the works council to a new homeworking policy – or court permission in place of that consent – does not automatically mean that every employee is bound by the policy. The works council’s consent carries weight when changing terms of employment, but it is not decisive.
In short, employers still need to make a well-supported case. Explain what the change is intended to achieve and address the works council’s objections seriously. For works councils, the lesson is to weigh the employer’s interests as well, and to remember that the test is reasonableness, not strict necessity.
Are you an employer, employee or works council member with questions about working from home? We can help you explore the issues. Contact our Employment Law team, subscribe to our newsletter (in Dutch) or take a look at our employee participation training courses for works councils and employers.
30 Oct 26
29 Oct 26
23 Oct 26
22 Oct 26
19 Oct 26
08 Oct 26
30 Sep 26
28 Sep 26
25 Sep 26
16 Sep 26
07 Sep 26
20 Aug 26
Met uw inschrijving blijft u op de hoogte van de laatste juridische ontwikkelingen op dit gebied. Vul hieronder uw gegevens in om per e-mail op te hoogte te blijven.
Stay up to date with the latest legal developments in your sector. Fill in your personal details below to receive invitations to events and legal updates that matches your interest.
Follow what you find interesting
Receive recommendations based on your interests
{phrase:advantage_3}
{phrase:advantage_4}
We ask for your first name and last name so we can use this information when you register for a Ploum event or a Ploum academy.
A password will automatically be created for you. As soon as your account has been created you will receive this password in a welcome e-mail. You can use it to log in immediately. If you wish, you can also change this password yourself via the password forgotten function.
