Types of workplace conflict: six patterns and what Dutch law requires

The six types of workplace conflict that matter legally in the Netherlands are task, process, relationship, status and power, values and ethics, and the legally sensitive category covering harassment, discrimination and whistleblowing. Dutch law does not regulate conflict as such, but it does impose duties that bite from the first day of tension: the Arbeidsomstandighedenwet (Working Conditions Act) obliges every employer to have a policy on psychosocial workload, and article 7:611 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil Code) requires both parties to behave as a good employer and a good employee. Failing on either turns a manageable disagreement into a dismissal case the employer usually loses.

The practical importance of naming the type is that each one has a different legal exit. A task dispute is resolved by instruction; a relationship conflict is usually resolved by mediation and, if not, by a court-ordered termination on the ground of a disturbed working relationship; a harassment complaint has to be investigated under a formal procedure and cannot be mediated away. Choosing the wrong instrument is what creates liability.

What Dutch law requires of an employer before any conflict escalates

The Working Conditions Act requires an employer to pursue a policy aimed at preventing and limiting psychosocial workload, a term that expressly covers work pressure, aggression and violence, sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination. That policy is not a document exercise: the risks have to be identified in the risk inventory and evaluation, measures have to be included in the plan of action, and employees have to be informed about them. The Netherlands Labour Authority supervises compliance and can issue a demand for compliance and impose a fine.

Alongside that public-law duty sit two private-law ones. Article 7:611 of the Civil Code requires the employer to act as a good employer, which is the provision courts use to test whether the employer handled a conflict fairly. Article 7:658 imposes a duty of care for a safe working environment, and it is not limited to physical safety; an employer can be liable for psychological harm caused by a working situation it failed to address, and in that claim the employer must prove it did what was required rather than the employee proving that it did not.

Where the organisation has a works council, several of the instruments discussed below require its consent rather than merely its opinion. A regulation on working conditions or absenteeism, a complaints procedure and an appraisal scheme all fall within the works council’s right of consent under the Works Councils Act, and a regulation introduced without that consent can be invalidated. Getting the procedure adopted properly is what makes it usable when a complaint arrives.

A note on the confidential adviser. A bill making the appointment of a vertrouwenspersoon compulsory was adopted by the House of Representatives in May 2023 and is still before the Senate; it is not yet law. In the meantime, appointing one is voluntary, and courts nevertheless treat the absence of any safe reporting route as a factor against the employer when a complaint has gone unaddressed.

Task conflict: where the right to instruct ends

Task conflict is disagreement about the work itself: who does what, which procedure applies, how a policy should be read, and how limited resources are allocated. Most of it is resolved by management rather than by law, and the employer has the legal means to do so. Article 7:660 of the Civil Code gives the employer the right to give instructions about the performance of the work and about order in the undertaking, and an employee who refuses a reasonable instruction is not simply expressing a view.

The limit is that an instruction is not a variation of the contract. Changing the job content substantially, moving someone to another location, altering working hours or reducing pay are changes of terms, not instructions. Where the contract contains a written unilateral variation clause, the employer may make the change only if it has an interest so weighty that the employee’s interest must yield. Where there is no such clause, the change has to be tested under the good employer and good employee standard: was there a changed circumstance that made a proposal reasonable, was the proposal itself reasonable, and can the employee reasonably be expected to accept it. Those are three separate questions, and employers frequently answer only the first.

What this means practically is that the record matters more than the argument. Confirm allocations, deadlines and decisions in writing, state the reason for a change, and give the employee a genuine opportunity to respond. If the dispute later becomes a dismissal case, the file that shows a fair process is worth more than the substantive rightness of the decision. Our guide to Dutch employment law sets out the framework, and our article on the boundaries of good employer conduct deals with the test in detail.

Process conflict: coordination disputes that become collective issues

Process conflict is about the how: workflows, hand-offs, tools, decision routes, availability and response times. It looks operational, and much of it is. The legal risk appears when a change of process is in substance a change of working conditions applying to a group.

Two thresholds are worth knowing. First, a change to the way work is organised that affects a group of employees can require the works council’s advice or consent, depending on what it touches; a new absenteeism procedure, a new appraisal system or a new complaints route requires consent. Second, changes to availability outside working hours, to rosters and to homeworking arrangements affect the contract and the working conditions rather than merely the workflow. Where an employer expects availability in the evening or at weekends, that expectation should be written down, and the position of employees who are not paid for it should be dealt with explicitly; our article on the right to disconnect sets out where the debate stands.

Hybrid working has multiplied process conflict, because norms that used to be absorbed in an office have to be made explicit. Disputes about camera use, monitoring software, response times and location are not really about process at all; they are about privacy, working conditions and control. Monitoring in particular has its own legal regime, and installing it in response to a conflict is a reliable way of creating a second one. Our article on handling workplace disputes in a hybrid workforce deals with the specifics.

Relationship conflict: how it becomes a sickness file

Relationship conflict is friction rooted in personalities, communication styles and history rather than in the work. It is the type that most often ends in a sick note, and the moment it does, a different legal regime takes over.

An employee who reports sick because of a conflict is entitled to continued payment of wages during illness, in principle for up to two years and at not less than seventy per cent of the wage, subject to the statutory maximum daily wage. The employer may not decide for itself whether the employee is genuinely unfit for work; that assessment belongs to the company doctor. What the company doctor frequently concludes in these cases is that there is no medical incapacity but a labour dispute, and that the parties should be brought together, if necessary with a mediator. Guidance widely used by company doctors recommends a short period of separation followed by structured talks, and courts expect an employer to follow that advice rather than to ignore it.

Two instruments are commonly misused. Stopping wages entirely is only available in defined situations, principally where the employee without good reason refuses to cooperate with reasonable reintegration instructions, and it must be announced in advance. Suspending payment is a different measure, available where the employee fails to comply with monitoring rules, and it is repaid once compliance resumes. Employers who use the wrong one, or use either without warning, lose that argument and often the whole case. Our articles on reintegration obligations and wage sanctions and on what happens when reintegration fails set out the sequence.

Either party can ask the employee insurance agency for an expert opinion where they disagree with the company doctor or with each other about the reintegration effort. It is inexpensive, it produces a written view, and in a conflict file it is often the fastest way to break a deadlock. Failing to make sufficient reintegration efforts exposes the employer to an extension of the wage payment obligation, which is the single most expensive consequence of mishandling a relationship conflict.

Mediation deserves emphasis. In Dutch practice it is the standard route for relationship conflict, it is confidential, and a refusal to take part without good reason counts against the refusing party if the matter later reaches court. It is not appropriate where the complaint is one of harassment or discrimination, because those require investigation, not compromise. Our article on using mediation effectively in Dutch employment disputes explains when it works.

Status and power conflict: demotion is a dismissal risk

Status and power conflict concerns authority, recognition, access to decisions and resources. Legally it is dangerous because the measures managers reach for are exactly the ones that change the contract: removing a title, narrowing a mandate, changing a reporting line, withdrawing a bonus or moving someone sideways.

Any of those may be a unilateral change of terms, subject to the tests described above, and a demotion imposed as a response to a conflict is frequently found to be seriously culpable conduct by the employer. The consequence is not merely that the measure is reversed: where a court terminates the contract afterwards, it can award an additional fair compensation on top of the statutory transition payment, and that compensation is calculated on the loss the employee actually suffers rather than on a formula.

Where decisions about promotion, reward or opportunity are contested, the risk shifts towards equal treatment. If an employee can point to facts that suggest a difference in treatment on a protected ground, the burden moves to the employer to prove that no prohibited distinction was made. An employer that cannot produce documented, objective criteria for a selection or a promotion is in a weak position from the outset, regardless of what actually motivated the decision. Our overview of employment discrimination law in the Netherlands sets out the grounds and the procedure.

Values and ethics conflict: conviction, expression and the limits

Values conflict is a clash about what is right: which clients to take, how to use data, what may be said, and how people may express belief or opinion at work. Dutch law protects a good deal of that expression, and it also sets limits, and the boundary runs through the employment relationship rather than around it.

Religion and belief are protected grounds under equal treatment legislation, and an employer may not make a distinction on that basis, directly or indirectly, unless a statutory exception applies. A neutral dress policy applied to all employees is capable of being justified, but only if it is genuinely applied consistently and pursues a legitimate aim by appropriate and necessary means. Our articles on freedom of religion in the workplace and on religious discrimination and compensation deal with the case law.

Freedom of expression works differently inside an employment relationship. An employee may hold and voice opinions, including critical ones, but the duty to behave as a good employee limits how and where. Statements that damage the employer, disclose confidential information or make continued cooperation impossible can justify a warning and, in serious cases, termination. Conversely, an employer that disciplines an employee for a lawfully expressed opinion risks a claim, and a policy that forbids expression in broad terms is unlikely to survive scrutiny.

The workable answer is procedural. Write down the decision criteria for the questions that generate values conflict, apply them consistently, record the reasoning, and distinguish clearly between a decision an employee disagrees with and conduct an employee may refuse to carry out. An employee is not obliged to follow an instruction that is unlawful, and an instruction to do something unlawful, once refused, frequently becomes a whistleblowing matter.

Legally sensitive conflict: harassment, discrimination and whistleblowing

This category is different in kind. Here the employer is not managing a disagreement but discharging a legal duty, and informal handling is itself a breach. Three regimes apply.

Unwanted conduct, including bullying, aggression and sexual harassment, falls within the psychosocial workload duty under the Working Conditions Act, and the employer must have a procedure for reporting and investigating it. Serious cases can also be criminal offences: assault, stalking, and the sexual offences restated by the Wet seksuele misdrijven, which has applied since 1 July 2024. An employer that receives a complaint must act on it, must protect the complainant from contact with the person complained of while the matter is examined, and must not resolve it by moving the complainant.

Discrimination on a protected ground is prohibited by equal treatment legislation, and the shifted burden of proof makes complaints comparatively easy to bring. An employee can go to the civil court, and can also ask the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights for an opinion; the procedure there is free and the opinion is not binding, but employers ignore an adverse opinion at their peril, because a court will take it into account.

Whistleblowing is governed by the Wet bescherming klokkenluiders, which has applied since 18 February 2023 and implements the European directive. Employers with fifty or more employees must have an internal reporting procedure that meets statutory requirements, including acknowledgement of receipt and a substantive response within set periods. A reporter who makes a report in good faith may not be disadvantaged in any way, and if a detriment follows a report the employer must prove that it had nothing to do with it. Reports can also be made externally, including to the House for Whistleblowers.

The practical protocol is the same in all three cases: acknowledge in writing, appoint a neutral investigator, define the scope and the timetable, secure the evidence before it disappears, take interim measures that do not disadvantage the person who came forward, process personal data proportionately and securely, and communicate the outcome so far as confidentiality allows. Any step that looks like retaliation, including a reassignment presented as a solution, converts a manageable complaint into a claim.

When the relationship cannot be repaired

Dutch dismissal law is closed: an employer may terminate only on one of the grounds listed in article 7:669 of the Civil Code, and it must show that the ground is fully made out and that redeployment within a reasonable period is not possible. For conflict cases the relevant ground is a disturbed working relationship of such a nature that continuation cannot reasonably be required. It is judged by the subdistrict court, which examines what the employer did to repair the relationship before concluding that it was beyond repair. An employer that never offered mediation, never addressed a complaint or created the disturbance itself will usually fail on that ground, or succeed at a price.

Where no single ground is complete, the cumulative ground allows the court to combine circumstances from several grounds. If it terminates on that basis it may award an additional payment of up to half the statutory transition payment. Separately, where the employer has acted in a seriously culpable way, the court can award a fair compensation with no statutory ceiling; conflict files in which the employer punished a complainant are the classic example.

Illness complicates the position but does not block it. There is a prohibition on giving notice during the first two years of incapacity, but the court can still dissolve the contract if the request is unrelated to the sickness. Where the conflict caused the sickness, that argument is hard to make, which is another reason to deal with the conflict before it becomes an absence file.

Most conflict cases end in a settlement agreement rather than a court decision, because both sides prefer certainty. That route has its own rules: the agreement must be in writing, the employee has a statutory reflection period after signing, and the wording determines whether unemployment benefit will be granted. An employee should never sign one on the day it is offered. Our guides on the vaststellingsovereenkomst for employees and on the settlement agreement compared with a UWV dismissal set out what to check.

Deadlines apply on both sides. An application to the court challenging a dismissal, or claiming compensation connected with it, expires two months after the employment ends, and that period cannot be interrupted or extended.

What to document, and what not to

Almost every conflict case is decided on the file. Record facts, dates, concrete behaviour, what was agreed and what was offered; avoid characterisations of personality, diagnoses and speculation about motives. Keep separate files for a performance issue and a complaint, because mixing them makes both harder to defend. Give the employee sight of what is recorded about them; under data protection law they are entitled to access their personal data, and a file written on the assumption that it will never be read is a liability.

Two practical points close the loop. Warnings should state what must change, by when and what happens if it does not; a warning without those elements carries little weight. And an employee who disagrees with a written record should respond in writing rather than verbally, because an unanswered record is treated as accepted. Employees looking for the practical steps will find them in our article on what to do if you have a conflict with your employer.

How Law and More can help

Law and More advises employers, HR departments and employees on all six types of workplace conflict. We draft and review complaints procedures, codes of conduct and reporting arrangements, guide investigations into harassment, discrimination and whistleblowing reports, advise on wage sanctions and reintegration during conflict-related absence, negotiate settlement agreements, and conduct proceedings before the subdistrict court where termination becomes unavoidable. Our Dutch employment law guides collect our material by topic. If a situation is escalating or a decision carries legal risk, speak with the Dutch employment lawyers at Law & More before the step is taken rather than afterwards.

Frequently asked questions