Long-Term Temp Work: where is the limit?

The Subdistrict Court of The Hague recently ruled that after having been hired for three years, a temporary worker has a permanent employment contract with the user company. This is a bold ruling with potentially large consequences for organisations working with temp workers. In this article we will inform you about this ruling, its consequences for working with temp workers, and what you as a user company can do to limit the risk of creating an employment contract with a temp worker.

Many organisations use temporary workers as a flexible means to tackle peaks in their operations or staff shortages. They can do so because the law offers room for this. For example, it is allowed to deviate from the normal sequence system for successive fixed-term employment contracts, and to agree on a temporary work clause, which causes the employment contract to end automatically as soon as the assignment at the user company ends. However, there are limits to this flexibility.
Article 5 of the EU Temporary Agency Work Directive provides that temporary work must be temporary by its nature. If it is not, there may be abuse. It follows from the Daimler judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that the national courts can take into account the following circumstances when assessing whether there is abuse:

• Whether the duration of the activity of the temporary worker at the user company is longer than what can reasonably be regarded as ‘temporary’ in view of all the relevant circumstances;
• Whether successive temporary work agreements can be justified objectively.

The ECJ has confirmed expressly that the Temporary Agency Work Directive gives no individual entitlement to an employment contract with a user company. Imposing sanctions is the job of the national legislator.
Against this background, on 21 November 2025 the Dutch Supreme Court decided on a matter concerning a temporary worker who had been hired by Unilever (and later Upfield) for thirteen years via different temporary-work agencies. The Court of Appeal of The Hague had found that there was no abuse, but the Supreme Court did not agree. It ruled that the general need for a flexible shell, as argued by the user company, was not an objective justification for hiring a person for thirteen years. The case was referred to another Court of Appeal, which will render a new judgment. Should this Court of Appeal also assume that there has been abuse, the consequences are still doubtful, because Dutch law has no clear sanction for this.

Against this background, on 21 November 2025 the Dutch Supreme Court decided on a matter concerning a temporary worker who had been hired by Unilever (and later Upfield) for thirteen years via different temporary-work agencies. The Court of Appeal of The Hague had found that there was no abuse, but the Supreme Court did not agree. It ruled that the general need for a flexible shell, as argued by the user company, was not an objective justification for hiring a person for thirteen years. The case was referred to another Court of Appeal, which will render a new judgment. Should this Court of Appeal also assume that there has been abuse, the consequences are still doubtful, because Dutch law has no clear sanction for this.

Recently, the Subdistrict Court of The Hague chose a clear direction in a matter between a temp worker, OTTO Workforce and Albert Heijn. The temp worker worked for more than seven years at several distribution centres of Albert Heijn in various jobs. When his hiring was terminated in October 2025 because of alleged conduct problems, the temp worker went to court. He argued that that Albert Heijn had abused the temporary work construction and that as result, he had an employment contract for an indefinite period with the user company, Albert Heijn.

The Subdistrict Court found for the temporary worker, judging that seven years of constant deployment could not be qualified as ‘temporary’ any more. Arguments such as staff shortage, continuous logistics operations, and the use of migrant workers did not suffice as a ground for this qualification. There was no objective justification. The Subdistrict Court held that as a consequence:

• there is an employment contract for an indefinite period of time with Albert Heijn;
• the employee has the right to be employed;
• and that the (back) salary must be paid.

A remarkable fact is that the Subdistrict Court also determined since what time there had been an employment contract with the user company, and followed the sequence system of Section 7:668a (1) DCC. This system allows employers to agree on a maximum of three successive fixed-term employment contracts with a maximum duration of three years in total. The Subdistrict Court therefore concluded that after three years, the hiring of the temp worker could no longer be regarded as temporary. From that time onwards, an employment contract for an indefinite period of time with Albert Heijn existed.

This approach is in line with the announcement by the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment (“SZW”) of a bill that will introduce a maximum hiring term of three years. After the end of this term, the user company should offer the temp worker an employment contract for an indefinite period. In his Letter to Parliament of 3 February 2026, the Minister confirmed that this bill was still work in progress.

This is the first ruling about the consequences of abuse of a temporary employment construction. While it is not a foregone conclusion that other courts will follow the same line, some comments to this judgment are in order. 

The Netherlands has no maximum (statutory) term for the hiring of temp workers. What is more, Section 7:691 (8) DCC expressly accounts for the possibility that a temp worker is hired for longer than three years. In addition, the Daimler judgment seems to suggest that it is the task of national legislators to establish sanction rules. If there are no such rules – as in the Netherlands – this should as a matter of principle result in liability of the State for the incorrect implementation of the Temporary Agency Work Directive. In the announcement mentioned above, the Minister of SZW has indeed acknowledged this. 

Furthermore, there was no inadmissible construction from the start that could be used to argue that it was only a construction on paper. Without a statutory basis I believe it would be very bold to assume that an employment contract with the user company exists. This sanction is indeed not mentioned in the Minister’s announcement; after the end of the hiring term, the user company should offer the temp worker an employment contract for an indefinite period. 

This makes it uncertain whether the sanction applied by the Subdistrict Court – assuming the existence of an employment contract with the user company – will be followed by others. 

Organisations that use temporary workers should keep a close eye on developments. After all, the above-mentioned ruling shows that the consequences for a user company may be big. We therefore advise you to take the following steps in any case:

• identify for how long temporary workers are deployed within your organisation;
• evaluate critically whether this deployment can still be justified as temporary;
• consider whether there is an objective justification for the deployment of temporary workers;
• check the contracts with the temporary-work agencies: what arrangements are in place if at any time a temp worker appears to be employed by the user company?

We are following these developments closely and will be happy to advise you on the design of your flexible shell and the controlling of legal risks. Please feel free to contact us if you need advice.