Dutch court approves 40% office attendance policy after works council refuses consent

In a dispute between Booking.com and its works council, the Amsterdam Subdistrict Court recently gave substitute approval for a new policy requiring the company's Dutch employees to come into the office for at least 40 per cent of their working hours each month. De Brauw's Stefan Sagel and Hein Koster handled this landmark case on behalf of Booking.com.

Background

In April 2026, Booking.com requested that its works council give its consent for a new company policy that would make it mandatory for the company's 6,000 Dutch employees to work from the Amsterdam headquarters for at least 40 per cent of their working hours each month (two days per week for full-time employees). The works council refused consent and Booking.com applied to the Amsterdam Subdistrict Court for substitute approval under article 27 of the Works Councils Act.

The subsequent court hearing drew much attention among press and legal commentators alike, as no such approval had been granted in similar cases before.

The ruling

On 27 October 2026, the Amsterdam Subdistrict Court granted Booking.com substitute approval to introduce the policy. The court left no room for discussion: Booking.com’s interest in mandating that employees spend this percentage of their working hours in the office is “undoubtedly” reasonable. Not only to promote collaboration, knowledge-sharing and innovation, but also to foster a sense of connection with colleagues. 

According to the court, employees are “certainly not being asked too much” by this attendance requirement. The court also found that Booking.com has a clear legitimate interest in monitoring compliance. This monitoring can involve employees being expected to share their badge data with their manager, or managers retrieving such data from internal systems.

The court rejected the works council’s arguments that Booking had inadequately consulted with them or failed to consider alternatives. Moreover, the court held, contrary to what the works council argued, that the 40% attendance requirement did not need to be demonstrably necessary or be supported by baseline, measurable success criteria or conclusive scientific evidence. The court found that Booking had meaningfully accommodated the works council’s input and it could reasonably prioritise collaboration, knowledge-sharing and employee connection over the commuting costs, travel time and impact on caring responsibilities raised by the works council.

What this means

Overall, this is a very clear and strong signal to employers wishing to increase office attendance. Following previous unsuccessful attempts by other companies, Booking.com has now succeeded in obtaining substitute approval to increase mandatory office attendance. 

The bar for obtaining substitute approval in works council cases is set relatively high, which is why this ruling is also so significant. In addition, it is relevant to the wider societal debate on the pros and cons of working from home. It offers perspective for many other companies in the Netherlands dealing with this issue. If you can provide reasonable arguments in favour of this type of policy − such as those relating to employee mental wellbeing and the promotion of collaboration and creativity − and organise a diligent consultation process, there are valid reasons to expect your works council to give consent.

However, the practical implications of attendance requirements remain open to further debate, particularly in relation to employees’ terms and conditions of employment. Our employment team can help you develop and implement appropriate hybrid working policies and shape your strategy on these issues.