The Hague District Court, 17 April 2026, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:9257
Facts
The employee had been employed by a staffing agency as an agency worker since 18 June 2018. From 2018 onwards, he was assigned to Albert Heijn distribution centres. Since November 2019, he had worked continuously at Albert Heijn’s distribution centre in Pijnacker.
In the years that followed, the employee applied several times for a permanent position at Albert Heijn, but these applications were repeatedly rejected. On 15 October 2025, the staffing agency informed the employee that Albert Heijn had ended his assignment due to behavioural issues.
The employee then went to the subdistrict court. He argued that Albert Heijn had misused the temporary staffing arrangement by engaging him continuously as an agency worker for more than seven years. According to the employee, an indefinite-term employment contract with Albert Heijn had, in fact, arisen.
Ruling
The subdistrict court first noted that agency work must, by its nature, be temporary. Based on the Temporary Agency Work Directive (Directive 2008/104/EC of 19 November 2008), the CJEU’s Daimler ruling, and the Dutch Supreme Court’s Upfield ruling, it must be assessed whether the duration of the assignment can still reasonably be regarded as temporary. All the circumstances of the case are relevant to this assessment.
The employee had worked continuously for Albert Heijn for more than seven years, without any end date having been agreed. According to the subdistrict court, such a long period can, in principle, no longer be regarded as temporary.
Albert Heijn argued that it was heavily dependent on agency workers in the logistics sector, partly due to staff shortages, night shifts, and the need for flexibility. The subdistrict court did not accept this argument. The fact that long-term use of agency workers is common in the sector does not mean an individual agency worker can be assigned on a “temporary” basis for more than seven years. The other circumstances cited by Albert Heijn, such as mechanisation, language requirements, accommodations for permanent staff, and the employee’s conduct, also did not, in the subdistrict court’s view, provide a sufficient objective explanation for the long-term assignment. The subdistrict court therefore ruled that Albert Heijn had misused the temporary staffing arrangement.
The subdistrict court subsequently ruled that an indefinite-term employment contract had arisen between the employee and Albert Heijn as of 18 June 2021, i.e. after 36 months of continuous assignment. The termination of the assignment on 15 October 2025 was regarded as a notice of termination of the employment contract. Because no permission had been obtained from the UWV or the subdistrict court for this, the termination was annulled.
Albert Heijn must allow the employee to resume his work as a warehouse worker at the Pijnacker distribution centre. In addition, Albert Heijn must calculate and pay outstanding wages and other employment conditions from 18 June 2021 onwards, to the extent the employee is entitled to more than he already received through the staffing agency. Albert Heijn must also register the employee with the pension fund retroactively.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling shows that the long-term engagement of an agency worker by the same hirer carries risks. Temporary staffing arrangements may not be used to have structural work carried out for years on end without the protection that comes with permanent employment.
The fact that an employer needs flexibility or faces staff shortages is, in itself, insufficient to justify a long-term assignment. The longer an agency worker works for the same hirer, the more important it becomes to be able to explain why the assignment is still temporary.
Employers who structurally use agency workers would therefore do well to periodically assess how long agency workers have already been engaged, whether the work is structural in nature, and whether an objective reason still exists for continuing the temporary staffing arrangement.
Do you have questions about the (long-term) engagement of agency workers or the risks of sham arrangements? Call one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
