Zero-hours contracts in the Netherlands are being abolished, but they are not gone yet. The Wet meer zekerheid flexwerkers, the Act providing greater security for flexible workers, was adopted by the House of Representatives on 12 May 2026 and by the Senate on 7 July 2026. It replaces the zero-hours and min-max contract with a bandwidth contract, extends the interval that breaks a chain of fixed-term contracts, and tightens the rules for agency work. Entry into force is by royal decree and may be set separately for individual provisions, so until each provision takes effect the existing rules of Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code continue to apply in full.
This article sets out what the Act changes, what already applies today, and what employers operating in the Netherlands should be doing while the transition runs. For the wider framework, see our overview of Dutch employment law.
What has been adopted, and what applies until it takes effect
The distinction matters commercially, so it is worth stating plainly. The Act has completed its passage through Parliament. It has not yet been brought into force. Under the Act itself, the date of entry into force is to be fixed by royal decree and can differ for different provisions.
The government has indicated two moments. The rule requiring agency workers to receive an at least equivalent overall package of employment conditions is intended to apply from the end of December 2026. The bandwidth contract and the amended chain rule are intended to follow considerably later, with 1 January 2028 named as the earliest date. Because those dates depend on a royal decree that has not yet been published, they should be treated as planning assumptions and checked before any contract is amended.
Until each provision applies, current law governs. Zero-hours and min-max contracts remain lawful. The existing on-call regime of article 7:628a of the Civil Code applies, the chain rule of article 7:668a applies in its present form, and the current phase system for agency work continues. An employer who converts contracts now on the assumption that the new rules are already in force is not complying early; it is simply agreeing to terms it is not yet obliged to offer, and those terms will be difficult to reverse.
The bandwidth contract that replaces zero-hours work
The centrepiece of the Act is a new default for on-call work. Instead of agreeing no hours at all, or a minimum and a maximum that are far apart, employer and employee agree a minimum number of hours, and the maximum may not exceed 130 per cent of that minimum. A minimum of 20 hours per week therefore allows the employer to require up to 26 hours; work beyond the bandwidth may be refused by the employee without consequences.
The economic point of the model is that the risk of insufficient work moves to the employer. The employee is entitled to wages for the agreed minimum hours whether or not work is offered, which is precisely what a zero-hours contract was designed to avoid. Flexibility survives, but only within a band the employer has committed to pay for.
Not everyone is caught. The Act preserves scope for genuinely incidental work by school pupils and students, and for workers who have reached the state pension age, on conditions set out in the legislation. Those exceptions are narrow and should not be treated as a general escape route for seasonal staffing.
Calling staff in: the rules that already apply today
The four-day notice rule is regularly presented as part of the 2026 reform. It is not new. Since the Balanced Labour Market Act took effect in 2020, article 7:628a of the Civil Code has required an employer to call an on-call worker to work at least four days in advance, in writing or electronically. A worker called at shorter notice is entitled to refuse the shift, and if the employer cancels or shortens the call within those four days, wages are due for the hours originally called. A collective labour agreement can shorten the period, but not below 24 hours.
The same article contains an obligation that is still widely overlooked. After an on-call relationship has lasted twelve months, the employer must offer the worker a fixed number of hours, at least equal to the average worked over the preceding twelve months. The offer must be made in writing within a month, and if it is not made, the worker is entitled to wages over that average anyway. Failing to make the offer therefore does not preserve flexibility; it creates a wage claim.
What the new Act changes is the underlying contract, not the call-in mechanism. Informal scheduling by message was already non-compliant. Employers who currently rely on it are exposed under existing law, without waiting for the reform.
The chain rule and the new interruption period
The chain rule in article 7:668a of the Civil Code converts a succession of fixed-term contracts into a contract of indefinite duration. The threshold itself is unchanged by the Act: after three fixed-term contracts, or after three years of successive fixed-term contracts, the next contract is one for an indefinite period.
What changes is the interval that breaks the chain. Under current law an interruption of more than six months resets the count, which has allowed the well-known pattern of releasing a worker for half a year and starting again. The Act extends that interval to three years. In practice that ends the revolving door: after three years or three contracts an employer must either offer permanent employment or genuinely part company.
Reports that the interruption period will become five years are incorrect. The figure adopted by Parliament is three years, and the difference is material for any employer planning its seasonal or project staffing. Limited scope remains for seasonal work under a collective labour agreement, and those provisions are interpreted restrictively.
Agency work: shorter phases and equivalent terms
The Act also reaches the staffing sector, and this is the part that takes effect first. Agency workers must receive an overall package of employment conditions that is at least equivalent to that of comparable workers employed directly by the hirer, rather than merely the same basic wage. That obligation is intended to apply from the end of December 2026, which gives hirers and agencies little time to map the terms that will have to be matched.
The phase system is compressed as well. The first phase, in which the agency contract may be terminated freely and includes an agency clause, is shortened to 52 weeks worked, and the possibility of extending it by collective agreement disappears. The second phase is reduced to two years with a maximum of six fixed-term contracts. Taken together the phases may not exceed three years, after which a contract of indefinite duration follows.
Running alongside this is a separate statute that hirers should already have in their planning. Under the Act on the admission of providers of labour, agencies and other providers of hired staff must be admitted before they may make workers available. Registration with the admitting authority runs from 1 November to 31 December 2026, the Act enters into force on 1 January 2027, and enforcement begins on 1 January 2028. The prohibition works in both directions: hiring workers from a provider that has not been admitted is itself unlawful, so client companies need to check the register, not only their suppliers.
The financial exposure employers already carry
The reform increases fixed labour costs, but the largest immediate risk for most employers comes from a provision that has been in the Civil Code for years. Under article 7:610b, where an employment contract has lasted at least three months, the agreed number of hours is presumed to equal the average worked over the preceding three months. The presumption is rebuttable, but the burden of rebutting it lies with the employer.
The practical effect is that structurally scheduling a worker for more hours than the contract states converts the contract by operation of the presumption. A worker on a nominal twelve-hour contract who has in fact worked thirty hours a week for a quarter can claim wages on thirty hours, and can continue to claim them in periods when no work is offered. Since the presumption looks at what actually happened, an up-to-date time registration is the employer's only real defence.
Sick pay, pension and social security
The agreed hours also drive obligations outside contract law. Wages during sickness are calculated on the contractual hours, and the statutory entitlement is seventy per cent of wages for up to 104 weeks, subject to the statutory minimum wage floor in the first year and to any more generous provision in a collective agreement. Where the presumption of hours has increased the contract, it increases the sick pay base with it.
Pension accrual follows the same logic: contributions are due on the contractual hours, including periods in which little work was offered. Employers moving from zero-hours to bandwidth contracts should therefore model the pension and sickness cost of the guaranteed minimum, not only the wage cost.
What employers should do now
The sensible response to the coming end of zero-hours contracts in the Netherlands is preparation rather than immediate conversion. Start with an inventory: which contracts are zero-hours or min-max, how many hours are actually worked under each, and where does the gap between contract and reality expose the business to the presumption of hours. That analysis is worth doing regardless of the reform, because the exposure exists today.
Next, model the guaranteed minimum. For each role, establish the level of work that is genuinely structural and can be paid for in quiet periods, and treat the bandwidth as the buffer rather than as the plan. Where the structural level is unclear, a period of accurate measurement is more useful than an assumption.
Then review the instruments that will carry the flexibility instead: fixed-term contracts within the new chain rule, agency work under the shortened phases and the admission requirement, and annualised hours arrangements, which remain possible provided the employee receives a guaranteed income per period. Check the applicable collective labour agreement as well, since several of the new rules can be adjusted only by collective agreement and the sector agreement may move before the statute does.
Finally, put the timetable in the calendar rather than in a memo. The equivalent-terms rule for agency workers is the first obligation to arrive, the admission regime for providers of labour follows immediately after, and the bandwidth contract and chain rule come later. Each is triggered by a royal decree, and the text of that decree is what should drive the amendment of contracts.
Zero-hours contracts in the Netherlands after the reform
The direction of Dutch labour law is not in doubt: structural work must be matched with structural security, and the instruments that allowed employers to keep wage risk with the worker are being withdrawn one by one. What is still open is the timing, and that is where employers make expensive mistakes in both directions, by converting too early or by assuming there is more time than there is.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Basic Contract (basiscontract) in the Dutch labour market reform?
The Basic Contract replaces zero-hours and min-max contracts, once the relevant provisions of the Wet meer zekerheid flexwerkers enter into force by royal decree. It requires a bandwidth of hours within which an employee must be available when called upon, but crucially shifts the wage risk to the employer: the employee is always entitled to wages for the agreed base hours, even if no work is provided during a given period.
Can employers still schedule staff informally, for example via WhatsApp, under the new rules?
No. Informal on-call scheduling through WhatsApp messages, verbal agreements or last-minute changes is already restricted: under article 7:628a of the Dutch Civil Code the employer must call an on-call employee to work at least four days in advance, in writing or electronically.
How has the interruption period for chains of temporary contracts changed?
Previously, a break of just six months was enough to restart the chain of temporary contracts. Under the adopted Wet meer zekerheid flexwerkers the interruption period becomes three years, so an employer that reaches the end of the chain has to choose between a permanent contract and a considerably longer break.
Are there still exceptions for seasonal work under the new rules?
Only narrowly defined seasonal work may still qualify for deviations, and only under a collective labour agreement. These exceptions are interpreted restrictively and are closely monitored.
What happens if an employer does not adapt contracts to the Basic Contract model?
Employers face financial exposure through the legal presumption of working hours under Article 7:610b of the Dutch Civil Code. If an employee consistently works more hours than contractually agreed over a period of three months, the employee may claim a contract reflecting the average number of hours actually worked.
Law & More advises employers and employees on flexible working arrangements in the Netherlands, from auditing existing zero-hours and min-max contracts and quantifying the exposure under the presumption of working hours, to redrafting contracts for the bandwidth model and reviewing agency and secondment arrangements against the new admission and equal-treatment rules. If you would like your contract portfolio assessed against the timetable set out above, please contact our employment lawyers.
