Workplace harassment and bullying: your rights and legal routes

Workplace harassment in the Netherlands is not one legal problem but three, and which one you face decides what you can demand and from whom. Bullying that makes work unbearable is a working conditions problem: the claim runs against your employer under its duty of care. Conduct linked to a protected characteristic is also discrimination, which opens extra remedies. Conduct that amounts to assault, stalking or a sexual offence is a criminal matter as well, and the three tracks can run at the same time.

Which legal category does the behaviour fall into, and why does it matter?

The label decides your remedies. Plain bullying gives you a claim against the employer for breach of its duty of care; a link to a protected ground adds the equal treatment rules and a shifted burden of proof; a criminal offence adds a police report.

The same behaviour often falls into two categories at once. It is worth naming that precisely rather than glossing over it. “Harassing remarks about my accent” is legally stronger than “general rudeness”. The first version brings the equal treatment legislation into play. With it comes a burden of proof that shifts to the employer once you establish facts from which discrimination may be presumed. Where the conduct is tied to a protected ground, our page on employment discrimination law sets out the grounds, the burden of proof and the procedural deadlines.

Who is protected?

Not only employees with a contract of employment. Under article 1 of the Working Conditions Act, the obligations also apply to anyone who has another person work under their authority, which covers agency workers, secondees and trainees on the premises. Whether a self-employed contractor on site is covered depends on whether they in fact work under the employer’s authority. A person without an employment contract has a weaker route to damages against the hirer, but the working conditions obligations still apply.

What counts as bullying, harassment and transgressive behaviour?

The courts look for a pattern of conduct that undermines someone’s dignity or safety, not a single incident. Dutch practice also distinguishes between unwanted conduct and transgressive conduct.

Unwanted conduct is behaviour you experience as unpleasant or disruptive without your boundaries necessarily being crossed: a stream of jokes at your expense, dismissive remarks, being talked over. Transgressive conduct goes further and crosses a personal boundary or a right: unwanted touching, sexual harassment, verbal or physical aggression, abuse of a position of power.

For bullying, the test is repetition. Isolated friction, a single sharp exchange, justified critical feedback or a lawful warning do not qualify. Repeated, escalating conduct that undermines someone’s dignity or safety does. An employer will usually argue this point first, so be precise from the outset.

Which forms does it take?

Verbal (insults, “jokes”, remarks about appearance), psychological (rumours, exclusion from meetings, impossible deadlines), non-verbal, digital and physical. Article 1(3)(e) of the Working Conditions Act names bullying, aggression and sexual harassment as psychosocial workload, so name the behaviour precisely: a vague complaint is hard to investigate and easy to dismiss.

How is sexual harassment treated?

As discrimination on grounds of sex. Sexual harassment is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature that violates a person’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment, and article 7:646 of the Civil Code treats it as prohibited discrimination.

That matters procedurally. It opens the route to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, and it shifts the burden of proof once the employee has established facts from which harassment may be presumed.

Alongside that civil track, the Sexual Offences Act (Wet seksuele misdrijven), in force since 1 July 2024, broadened the criminal definitions of sexually transgressive conduct, including in the workplace and online, and lowered the threshold for offences committed without consent. Serious cases therefore run on two tracks at once, and choices on one affect the other. A criminal complaint can strengthen a civil claim, but it also takes the pace of the matter out of your hands.

What is your employer obliged to do?

Your employer must prevent psychosocial workload and, where that is not possible, limit it. That duty of care is the backbone of every bullying and harassment claim.

Article 1 of the Working Conditions Act defines psychosocial workload as factors at work that cause stress, and names discrimination, sexual harassment, aggression and violence, bullying (pesten) and work pressure. Article 3(2) of the same act requires the employer to have a policy aimed at preventing or limiting this workload. The employer must identify the risks in its risk inventory and evaluation, set out measures against them and review both when circumstances change. The Working Conditions Decree adds that where there is a risk of psychosocial workload, the employer must take concrete measures and inform staff about the risks and the measures taken. Article 7:658 of the Civil Code makes the employer liable for harm suffered at work if it fell short of that duty.

In practice the obligation comes down to three things:

• a policy that names the behaviour and the measures;
• a complaints procedure that a complaint can actually reach and that is not routed through the person complained about;
• prompt action once the employer knows, or should have known, what is going on.

Beyond that, article 7:611 of the Civil Code requires an employer to behave as a good employer. Courts use that standard to assess how a report was handled once it was received.

When is the employer liable?

When signals reached the organisation and nothing was done with them. Liability does not require that management approved of the conduct, nor that a formal complaint was ever filed.

Signals can come through sickness absence figures, an exit interview, a remark to a team leader or an employee survey. The duty also covers conduct by colleagues, by managers and by third parties such as clients, patients, passengers or contractors on site. That is why employers in sectors with heavy public contact are expected to have specific measures in place.

Is a confidential adviser compulsory?

Not yet. It is often written that every Dutch employer must appoint a confidential adviser (vertrouwenspersoon), but that is not the law today.

The private member’s bill that would make it compulsory (bill 35592) was passed by the House of Representatives on 23 May 2023 and is still in the written preparation stage in the Senate. Until it enters into force, a confidential adviser is strong evidence that the employer took its duty seriously. What the law does require is a complaints route that works: a route that leads straight back to the person complained about falls short of the duty of care, whatever the policy says.

What role do the works council and whistleblower rules play?

The works council has a say in the policy, not in your individual case. Under article 27(1)(d) and (j) of the Works Councils Act (Wet op de ondernemingsraden), the employer needs the council’s consent for arrangements on working conditions and for a complaints procedure.

Where the conduct points to a structural failing, such as sexual harassment that management has tolerated, a report may fall under the Whistleblower Protection Act (Wet bescherming klokkenluiders). That act prohibits detrimental treatment of the reporter and puts the burden on the employer to show that a measure was unconnected to the report. The matter must involve a public interest, not only your own position.

How do you build the file?

Start recording as soon as the behaviour feels wrong, before you decide whether to act. These cases are decided on paper: the party with dates, messages and medical records is usually in a stronger position than the party with only a narrative.

What goes into the incident log?

Facts, not conclusions. “He was condescending” is an opinion; the sentence he used is evidence.

Keep the log off your employer’s systems: use a personal device, a private mail account or a notebook at home. A log stored on a company drive can disappear with your account on the day the relationship breaks down.

How do you preserve digital evidence?

Save it as it arrives, outside the employer’s systems, and do not edit it. Forward messages to a private address and save them as PDFs with the header visible. Screenshot chat threads in full with the date and time in view, because the sender can delete a message later. Leave the files unchanged, because metadata is part of what makes them credible.

Be careful with covert recordings. Recording a conversation you are yourself taking part in is not a criminal offence in the Netherlands, and such a recording is in principle admissible in civil proceedings. Using it can still breach confidentiality obligations or damage the working relationship beyond repair, and a judge may weigh how it was obtained. Take advice before you rely on one.

How do witnesses and medical records help?

Witnesses confirm the pattern; medical records connect it to a loss. Ask colleagues who saw what happened to write a short statement while it is fresh, from a private email address. If they are afraid to, note their names anyway. A court can hear them later, and witnesses who would not put anything in writing while employed sometimes speak freely once they have left.

Health effects count only if they are recorded. See your GP, the company doctor or a psychologist and ask for their findings in writing. Keep sick notes, occupational health reports and invoices. Without them, a claim has nothing linking the conduct to the loss.

How does the internal route work?

Raise the matter inside the organisation first, unless that is unsafe. A court expects the employer to have had a fair chance to solve the problem, and the internal route puts the duty of care squarely on the employer and creates the record a later claim rests on.

Should you address it directly?

Only where it feels safe. A short factual message such as “I do not want remarks about my appearance. Please stop.” shows that the conduct was unwelcome, which is an element of harassment under article 7:646 of the Civil Code. Confirm the conversation in a short email. Where the other person is your manager, where you fear retaliation or where the conduct is already serious, skip this step: it is not a required stage.

How do you report it?

Through the channel the policy names, never through the person complained about. Find the policy first, in the staff handbook or on the intranet. In most organisations a report goes to HR, a manager other than your own, or the confidential adviser where there is one. If your own manager is the problem, report above or around them.

When you report, bring the log and one or two representative pieces of evidence rather than the whole archive. State the outcome you are asking for and ask for a written record of the meeting. Send your own confirmation from a private address as well. Being explicit about the outcome helps. An employer asked to stop the behaviour and separate the reporting lines has a concrete instruction to respond to. An employer told only that someone is unhappy will often respond with a conversation and nothing else.

How do you know the internal route is failing?

There are recognisable signs. The investigator reports to the person complained about. Deadlines in the procedure keep moving. You are heard once and then hear nothing. Tasks are taken away, a warning appears in your file, or your role is quietly changed while the complaint is still open.

Record each of these as a separate incident. Detrimental treatment because you have complained is prohibited in its own right where the complaint concerns discrimination or a report of wrongdoing. In other cases it strengthens the claim rather than weakening it. It is also the point at which external advice is no longer premature; our employment lawyers advise both employees and employers, in Dutch and in English.

Which external bodies can help, and what can they not do?

Four bodies matter: the Netherlands Labour Authority, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, the union and company doctor, and the police. None of them can award you compensation in an employment dispute, so know in advance what each one can and cannot do.

The Netherlands Labour Authority

The Netherlands Labour Authority (Nederlandse Arbeidsinspectie, the name since 1 January 2022) enforces the Working Conditions Act. It can investigate whether the employer has a policy on psychosocial workload and whether it is applied. It can issue demands, order improvements and impose fines for breaches of that act. It does not decide individual disputes, it does not award compensation and it will not reinstate you. Treat it as pressure on the employer’s systems rather than a remedy for your own case. A report can be made anonymously, but anonymity limits what the inspectorate can investigate.

The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights

The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens) is free, needs no lawyer and is open to you where the conduct is connected to a protected ground. After a written exchange and usually a hearing, it gives a reasoned opinion on whether the equal treatment legislation has been breached. The opinion is not binding, and the Institute cannot award damages or set aside a dismissal. A court can take the opinion into account in later proceedings. Because the Institute is not a court, a request there is no substitute for legal proceedings, so keep track of the deadlines that apply to your claim.

Union and company doctor

A union representative can attend meetings and negotiate. The company doctor can record that continued exposure is unsafe and advise a temporary change of workplace; under the Gatekeeper Improvement Act that advice carries weight because it comes from an independent professional.

The police

Where the conduct amounts to assault, threats, stalking or a sexual offence, you can report it. Two practical points. Stalking (belaging) under article 285b of the Criminal Code can only be prosecuted on the complaint of the victim, so you need to file a formal complaint, not a mere notification. And as an injured party you can claim compensation within the criminal proceedings. That is quicker and cheaper than a separate civil case, although the criminal court will refer a complicated claim to the civil court rather than deal with it.

What can a court order?

A court can order the behaviour to stop in summary proceedings, award damages against the employer, or dissolve the employment contract with extra compensation. Which route fits depends on whether you want to stay, recover a loss or leave.

Interim relief

Summary proceedings (kort geding) can be heard within weeks and are the right tool when the point is to make it stop now. Typical orders are that the other person has no further contact with you or is moved, that you may work from home on full pay, that access to the building is restricted, or that a penalty is payable for each day an order is breached. Because the relief is provisional, the evidential bar is lower: a consistent log, a medical note and a handful of messages can be enough. The employer has to show it has already taken all reasonable measures, and that is where its defence often falls short.

Damages from the employer

A claim for damages goes to the subdistrict court (kantonrechter). It hears employment claims whatever the amount, and you do not need a lawyer there. Three things have to be established: a pattern of conduct rather than isolated incidents, a breach by the employer of its duty of care, and a causal link to the loss claimed.

Article 7:658 of the Civil Code helps the employee. Once the harm and its connection with the work are established, it is for the employer to prove that it complied with its duty of care, or that the harm is largely due to the employee’s own intent or deliberate recklessness. Recoverable loss can include treatment costs, lost income and other expenses actually incurred, and in principle also compensation for non-financial harm. Awards depend almost entirely on the medical and documentary evidence, so a figure from another case says very little about yours. A claim for compensation is subject to a limitation period of five years from the moment you know both the damage and who is liable for it. In practice that is often later than the conduct itself.

Where the claim turns mainly on the extent of health damage, assessing that damage is specialist personal injury work. The employment law questions, such as the employer’s duty of care, the internal procedure and the future of the contract, are separate from it.

Ending the employment on your terms

You can ask the court to dissolve your contract because of the employer’s conduct. Where the employer has acted in a seriously culpable way, for example by letting the situation continue or by handling the complaint badly, the court can award fair compensation on top of the transition payment (transitievergoeding). This keeps the initiative with you and avoids the risks of resigning.

Resigning for urgent cause is the riskier version of the same idea. It ends the contract immediately, but if the urgent cause is not accepted you may be left without unemployment benefit. In practice, a credible dissolution application often leads to a settlement agreement, and many of these matters end there: a termination payment, a contribution to legal costs and a neutral reference.

Whichever route you take, watch the deadlines. Under article 7:686a(4) of the Civil Code, a challenge to a dismissal or a request for fair compensation must be brought within two months, and a claim for the transition payment within three months of the end of the contract.

What happens to sick leave while the complaint runs?

The reintegration timetable keeps running alongside the complaint. You are not required to return to a workplace where the conduct has not been addressed, but you should put any disagreement on record rather than simply refuse.

Under the Gatekeeper Improvement Act (Wet verbetering poortwachter), the company doctor draws up the problem analysis no later than week six. The plan of action follows within two weeks of that, so by week eight. The plan is drawn up with you and reviewed at least every six weeks.

One rule is worth knowing before the first appointment: reintegration into a workplace where the conduct has not been addressed is not suitable work, and you are entitled to say so. If you disagree with the employer or the company doctor, either party can ask the UWV for an expert opinion (deskundigenoordeel). That is the ordinary way to break a deadlock about suitable work or about whether the reintegration effort is sufficient. Refusing suitable work can cost you your wages, so test the disagreement rather than act on it unilaterally. Our page on sick leave and reintegration sets out the full timetable and the wage rules that go with it.

What should you check as an employee?

Check that your evidence is secure and that you know your deadlines before you report. The two-month deadline of article 7:686a(4) of the Civil Code applies as soon as a dismissal or fair compensation is at stake.

• Is the conduct linked to a protected ground, such as sex, race, age or disability? Then article 7:646 of the Civil Code and the Institute for Human Rights come into play.
• Are your incident log, messages and witness names stored outside the employer’s systems?
• Which complaints channel does the policy name, and does it bypass the person you complain about?
• Has your GP or the company doctor recorded the health effects in writing? Your employer may ask about your fitness for work, not about a diagnosis.
• Before you sign a settlement agreement: what does it say about the reason for leaving, the reference, the internal file and confidentiality?

What should you check as an employer?

Check your policy before a report arrives and your process as soon as one does. A court judges the investigation on how it was run, not on what it concluded.

• Does the risk inventory and evaluation (RI&E) required by article 5 of the Working Conditions Act cover psychosocial workload, with concrete measures?
• Does the complaints procedure have the works council’s consent under article 27(1)(j) of the Works Councils Act, and does it bypass the person complained about?
• Is the investigator independent of both parties, and external where senior management is involved?
• Are both sides heard, and are the allegations put to the person complained about?
• Do interim measures avoid falling on the person who complained? Sending the complainant home while the other person carries on is itself detrimental treatment.
• Is the decision reasoned, in writing and followed by consequences, and is access to the file restricted? It contains special category personal data under the GDPR.

Two mistakes recur: treating a report as an HR nuisance until it becomes a claim, and dismissing on the basis of an investigation that did not hear the other side. Summary dismissal under article 7:678 of the Civil Code requires an urgent cause, immediate action and immediate notice of the reason. Our employment law guides set out the dismissal routes and the evidence each one requires.

What can we do for you with workplace harassment and bullying?

We advise employees and employers in English and Dutch, from the first report to proceedings before the subdistrict court.

• We review your incident log and evidence and tell you which of the three legal tracks apply.
• We draft the written complaint to the employer, or the employer’s response to a report.
• We set up or review a policy on psychosocial workload and a complaints procedure, including the works council consent.
• We apply for summary proceedings (kort geding) to stop the conduct when the internal route fails.
• We claim damages under article 7:658 of the Civil Code or negotiate a settlement agreement with a termination payment.
• We file a dissolution request or challenge a dismissal within the two-month deadline.

Summary

• Bullying is a breach of the employer’s duty of care under the Working Conditions Act and article 7:658 of the Civil Code; a link to a protected ground adds discrimination law, and assault, threats or stalking add criminal law.
• A confidential adviser is not yet compulsory (bill 35592 is still before the Senate), but a working policy and complaints procedure are.
• Build the file early: a factual log, preserved messages, witness names and written medical findings, all kept off the employer’s systems.
• External bodies such as the Labour Authority and the Institute for Human Rights add pressure, but only a court can order the conduct to stop or award compensation.
• Act early and watch the deadlines: two months to challenge a dismissal or claim fair compensation, three months for the transition payment.

Frequently asked questions