Dog in the workplace: an established practice becomes an employment condition
Midden-Nederland District Court, 24 September 2025, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:5015
The Midden-Nederland subdistrict court recently issued an interesting ruling about bringing a dog to work. The case makes clear under what circumstances a workplace habit can grow into an employment condition. It also confirms that, without a unilateral amendment clause, an employer cannot simply change existing employment conditions.
Facts
The employee has worked for the employer as a physiotherapist since 22 August 2019. From the start of his employment, he has brought his dog to work. At the location where the employee works, six other employees also regularly bring their dogs.
In late May 2024, the then manager announced that bringing dogs to work would soon no longer be allowed. As of 1 June 2024, a new location manager took over, who confirmed this policy. In an email dated 3 June 2024, he announced that a complete ban on bringing dogs would apply at the location from 1 July 2024.
After protests from several employees, the effective date of the ban was moved to 1 May 2025. The employee disagrees with this decision but has, for now, complied with it and has not brought his dog to work since 1 May 2025.
The employee claimed, among other things, that the employer be ordered to suspend the ban on bringing dogs to work as it applies to him, until a final ruling is given in main proceedings on whether the employer was entitled to unilaterally change this employment condition. The employee also claimed that the employer be ordered to allow him to bring his dog to work under the same conditions as before.
Ruling of the subdistrict court
The subdistrict court considers it plausible that a court in main proceedings will rule that an employment condition arose here as a result of an established practice.
In reaching this view, the subdistrict court takes into account that the employee had consistently brought his dog to work since starting employment in August 2019, and that six other colleagues did the same. Bringing the dog mattered to the employee, because otherwise the dog would be alone at home for long periods, and, given the location of his home, he could not make use of a dog-walking service.
The employee also stated that his dog had a positive effect on his clients’ wellbeing and played a supportive role in therapy. He emphasised that he had never received any complaints about his dog’s presence. The employer did not dispute this, nor had it ever objected to the dog being brought to work before late May 2024.
Given these circumstances, the employee was entitled to trust that he had the right, under his employment contract, to bring his dog to work.
The employment contract does not include a unilateral amendment clause. This means the employer cannot unilaterally change this employment condition.
The employer has not sufficiently substantiated that there are changed circumstances that could justify an adjustment to this employment condition. Nor can the general ban on bringing dogs to work be regarded as reasonable.
The subdistrict court therefore considers it plausible that a court in main proceedings will rule that the employee cannot be required to agree to a change to this employment condition. The employee’s claims are granted.
Conclusion: dog in the workplace becomes an employment condition
This ruling underlines that changing employment conditions can be legally complex. The above ruling shows how important it is to include a unilateral amendment clause in an employment contract.
Only where the employer makes a reasonable proposal for which there is sufficient cause can an employee be expected to agree to it. It is therefore important for both employers and employees to think carefully about the content of, and possible changes to, employment conditions before the employment contract is signed.
Also have a dog in the workplace?
Or click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
