How much information must an employer provide to the Works Council during an advisory process?

The right to information in brief

As a refresher: under Section 31(1) of the WOR, the employer is obliged, upon request, to provide the works council with ‘all information and data’ that the works council reasonably requires to fulfil its duties. In addition, the employer must periodically share information on, amongst other things, the financial position, social policy and (for companies with 100 or more employees) the terms and conditions of employment for each group of employees.

Specifically, when seeking advice, Article 25(3) of the WOR stipulates that the employer must provide an overview of the reasons for the decision, the expected consequences for staff and the proposed measures. It is the combination of Article 31 and Article 25(3) of the WOR that has been central to recent case law.

The Works Council determines the information requirements

A recurring principle in recent case law is that, in principle, it is up to the Works Council – and not the employer – to determine what information it needs in order to provide sound advice. The employer may only refuse a request for information if they can justify their refusal in such a way that there can be no reasonable doubt that the requested information is not relevant. That is a high bar to clear. The employer would therefore be well advised to take requests for information from the works council seriously and not to reject them too hastily.

This does not mean that every request for information must be granted without further ado. The employer may, with justification, limit a request where the information sought is not reasonably relevant to the Works Council’s performance of its duties, is not available, or the request is disproportionate. Furthermore, in the case of business-sensitive information, confidentiality may be imposed pursuant to Article 20 of the WOR.

The most notable recent ruling on the right to information is that of the Enterprise Chamber of 20 May 2025 concerning Micro Focus (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:1299). Micro Focus, part of the globally operating OpenText group, had to cut twelve posts in the Netherlands as a ‘ ’ following a global reorganisation. The employer sought advice from the Works Council, but the request for advice contained almost exclusively information at global or European level: consolidated overall figures, an explanation of the global ‘Business Optimisation Programme’, but no concrete evidence of the impact on the Dutch company.

The Works Council rightly asked further questions, but Micro Focus did not, or hardly, address them. The defence that the requested information was ‘difficult to answer’ or that Micro Focus was simply ‘part of the bigger picture’ was rejected by the Enterprise Chamber. The internal organisational structure – functional lines rather than geographical ones – does not relieve the employer of its duty to provide information.

Indeed, the Enterprise Chamber ruled that, when applying Dutch employee participation law, the structure of the internal organisation is a factor that falls at the entrepreneur’s own risk and expense. The Dutch subsidiary must always be in a position to assess independently how the interests of the Dutch company are affected by the proposed reorganisation, to weigh those interests against the group’s interests, and to provide the Works Council with insight into that process.

Also relevant is the consideration that the employer cannot hide behind the fact that the works council did not repeat a previous request for information. The Enterprise Chamber held that it cannot be the case that the provision of information is deemed to be ‘in order’ simply because the works council did not raise a legitimate request for further information again.

Micro Focus’s decision was set aside.

GfK: brief request for advice, financial justification submitted too late

The Enterprise Chamber’s decision of 26 February 2026 concerning GfK (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:575), which is also part of an international group (NielsenIQ), presents a somewhat different picture. GfK sought advice on a reorganisation, but according to the Enterprise Chamber, the request for advice was “very briefly substantiated” and contained neither an explanation of the reasons tailored to the Dutch company nor any financial justification.

It was only after questions from the Works Council that further clarification was provided. The financial justification was not even provided until after the Works Council had already issued its (negative) advice. The Enterprise Chamber ruled that GfK had failed in its responsibility to ensure the proper conduct of the employee participation process.

Nevertheless, the decision stood in this case. The Works Council itself endorsed the objectives of the reorganisation; the substantive objections proved to be unfounded; and GfK had ultimately – albeit too late – provided sufficient information and rejected the negative advice with justification.

The lesson: inadequate provision of information does not always lead to the decision being overturned. However, it does result in a risky and protracted employee participation process for the employer – and the outcome could have been different had the Works Council’s position on the substance of the matter been stronger.

Sabic: deficiencies rectified

In the Sabic case (Enterprise Chamber, 7 March 2024, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2024:519), the issue of information also played a role. The international group relocated its European headquarters from Sittard to Amsterdam. The Works Council was initially informed too late: an external advisory report was withheld for months and the request for advice was only made following pressure from the Works Council. Nevertheless, the Enterprise Chamber ruled that, following the initial requests for advice, Sabic had subsequently organised the employee participation process properly: detailed questions were answered, financial information was provided and dozens of consultation meetings were held. The initial shortcomings were thus remedied.

A flawed start to the employee participation process need not, therefore, be fatal. If the employer subsequently provides the missing information in a timely and comprehensive manner and the Works Council is able to exert a genuine influence on the decision, earlier shortcomings can be rectified.

The three rulings thus present a nuanced picture. The Enterprise Chamber assesses not only whether the provision of information was initially deficient, but above all whether the works council was ultimately informed sufficiently and in good time to be able to exert a substantive influence on the decision.

The link with the right to be consulted

The right to information does not stand alone, but is closely intertwined with the right to be consulted. In practice, inadequate provision of information regularly leads to delays in the consultation process, a deterioration in relations or – in the worst-case scenario – the entrepreneur taking a decision without awaiting the advice. In recent judgements concerning, amongst others, Spotify (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2023:3520), eScience (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:1794) and Decathlon (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:1232), the apparent unreasonableness lay primarily in the failure to seek (or await) advice, but gaps in the information provided were a significant contributing factor.  Even where a decision by the Enterprise Chamber ( ) ultimately stands, a failure to provide adequate information can lead to delays, further enquiries, strained relations and proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber.

Practical advice

The common thread running through recent case law yields the following lessons:

• Make it local and specific. Particularly in a group context: translate the global or European strategy into its specific impact on the Dutch company. Consolidated figures at group level are not sufficient. The group’s organisational structure is no excuse in this regard.
• Be proactive. Provide all relevant information of your own accord when requesting advice, including financial justification. Do not wait until the Works Council asks for it.
• Take requests for information seriously. It is up to the Works Council to determine what information it requires. A refusal is only justified if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the information is not material. Furthermore, if a request for information is not repeated, this does not mean it has been withdrawn.
• Avoid submitting a cursory request for advice. The reasons behind the proposal, the consequences for staff and the proposed measures: all three elements of Section 25(3) of the WOR must be included in the request for advice from the outset. A request for advice that is ‘supplemented’ at a later stage poses a risk and gives the Works Council the impression that the decision has, in fact, already been taken.
• Remedial action is possible. A false start in the provision of information need not be fatal, provided that the employer rectifies the shortcomings in a timely and comprehensive manner and genuinely enables the Works Council to exercise its right to be consulted.
• Define the limits carefully. If certain information cannot be provided, explain specifically why not and investigate whether it is possible to provide it under confidentiality or in a more restricted form.

Conclusion

The Enterprise Chamber sets high standards for the provision of information in consultation processes. International groups, in particular, would be well advised to clarify, even before the request for advice is made, why a decision is necessary for the Dutch company and what local consequences it will have. The Dutch entrepreneur must be able to assess the interests of the Dutch company independently and enable the Works Council to exert a substantial influence on this. If this does not happen, there is a real risk that the employee participation process will stall or that the decision will not stand up to scrutiny by the Enterprise Chamber.

Do you have any questions on this topic, or on any other matter relating to works councils? We’d be happy to advise you. Please feel free to get in touch, or sign up for our newsletter!