Homepage Insights News & Events News

The legislative proposal ‘Meer zekerheid flexwerkers’ has been adopted by the House of Representatives

Blog

Also in: Dutch

21-05-2026

4 minutes read

On 12 May 2026, the Dutch House of Representatives adopted the legislative proposal More protection for flexible workers ('Meer zekerheid flexwerkers'). Through various amendments, the proposal has been tightened on several key points. The core objective is to limit long-term flexible employment arrangements and strengthen the legal position of flexible workers, in particular on-call and agency workers. This contribution outlines the main changes, including the revision of the chain provision, the further restriction of zero-hours contracts and the stricter rules for temporary agency work.

Key insights

Limiting long-term flexibility: The legislative proposal aims to curb the structural use of flexible work arrangements and to strengthen the legal position of flexible workers.

Stricter rules on successive fixed-term contracts: The interruption period will be extended from 6 to 36 months, in order to enhance the possibility of an indefinite employment contract.

Stricter rules for temporary agency work and minimum-maximum contracts: More protection for agency workers (including during illness and upon employment by the hiring company) and retention of strict frameworks for bandwidth contracts (no deviation by collective agreement and no annual hours norm). Also, very limited possibilities for zero-hours contracts.

Employment & Benefits Flexible Employment Relationships

Stricter framework and increased steering of labour flexibility

Since the House of Representatives adopted the legislative proposal More protection for flexible workers ('Meer zekerheid flexwerkers'), a series of amendments has strengthened the original proposal on several essential elements. The overarching theme is clear: reducing long-term labour flexibility and strengthening the legal position of flexible workers, in particular on-call workers and temporary agency workers.

Chain provision: quicker transition to permanent employment

One of the most notable changes concerns the so-called chain provision. The existing interruption period of six months will be replaced by a period of 36 months in order to prevent that employees work on temporary contracts for too long. The aim is to ensure that employees who are effectively performing work on a structural basis will get a permanent employment contract more quickly.

Zero-hours contracts: further strengthening of the starting point

The legislative proposal strongly focuses on reducing the use of zero-hours contracts as a standard form of employment. Although the principle that a fixed number of working hours should be agreed upon is not new in itself, the proposal positions this more explicitly as a mandatory general rule and further tightens it. As a result, zero-hours contracts are in principle excluded as a regular type of employment contract. An amendment that sought to allow zero-hours contracts to remain possible through collective labour agreements was rejected. This means that, in principle, this type of contract is no longer allowed through collective labour agreements. Exceptions will, however, remain in place for young employees, school pupils, students, and employees who have reached the state pensionable age.

Minimum-maximum contracts: limited flexibility remains the starting point

Several amendments aimed at introducing greater flexibility within bandwidth contracts were rejected. As a result, the number of working hours may still be determined only on a quarterly basis, and not on an annual basis. It will also not be possible to deviate, through a collective labour agreement, from the fixed statutory bandwidth of 130%. This means that the 130% limit remains a strict statutory standard.

Temporary agency work: greater protection and stricter supervision

The legislative proposal also contains several relevant changes for the temporary agency sector. For example, the temporary employment agency clause (uitzendbeding) can no longer be invoked during illness by the employer. In such cases, the agency worker will remain employed, providing greater security with regard to both income and the continuation of the employment contract.

The provision requiring the hirer to pay the agency a “reasonable compensation” if the agency worker is hired directly by the hirer will also be further regulated. A ministerial regulation may henceforth set a specific maximum in order to prevent excessively high compensation fees which can obstruct the transition for the agency worker to a direct employment agreement with the hirer.

Conclusion

With the adoption of the legislative proposal by the house of Representatives 'Meer zekerheid flexwerks’, the legislator is taking a clear step towards greater income and legal certainty for flexible workers, without completely moving away from flexibility. However, the balance is visibly shifting: there is less room for long-term temporary employment and more emphasis on equal treatment, limiting exceptions, and providing structural protection. For employers and parties to the collective labour agreement, this means that existing flexible employment relationships will need to be critically reviewed, particularly those involving on-call and agency work.

It should be noted, however, that the proposal has so far only been adopted by the House of Representatives and still needs to be considered by the Senate. The Senate can however not introduce amendments; it can only approve or reject the bill.