The Hague Court of Appeal, 16 June 2026, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:1871
An employee should always know with which legal entity they are employed. That may seem self-evident, but in practice disputes can arise when multiple companies use the same trade name. A recent ruling by The Hague Court of Appeal shows that this uncertainty is at the employer’s expense and risk. The employee does not have to work out for themselves, using pay slips, payroll tax numbers, or trade register data, who their employer is.
Facts
The employee worked as a greenhouse horticulture worker under an employment contract with “Uitzendonderneming Euro Start Uitzendbureau” (a temporary employment agency). Behind this trade name, however, were several companies: Euro werk Aanneembedrijf B.V., Eurowerk 2 B.V., and Eurowerk 3 B.V. each separately used the same trade name and were established at the same address.
The employee reported sick on 20 June 2023. From that point on, a dispute arose about continued payment of wages during illness. The employee had already claimed payment of wages twice before in summary proceedings. In both cases, the companies were held jointly and severally liable to pay wages during illness.
In these third proceedings, the employee again claimed outstanding wages, this time from 8 December 2024. The subdistrict court largely granted the wage claim and also awarded the maximum statutory increase of 50%. The companies appealed.
Ruling
The Court of Appeal first ruled that the uncertainty about who exactly the employer is lies at the expense and risk of the companies. According to the Court of Appeal, it is up to the employer to clearly inform the employee which entity is acting as employer. This obligation also follows from Section 7:655(1)(a) of the Dutch Civil Code. It is therefore not up to the employee to work out for themselves, for example using a payroll tax number or trade register data, with which company they are employed.
Because the employment contract only stated the trade name and address, while several companies used that same trade name, the uncertainty could not be placed on the employee. The joint and several liability of the companies therefore remained in place.
The companies’ argument for suspending or stopping wage payments also failed. They claimed the employee had insufficiently cooperated with his reintegration and had refused suitable work. However, an earlier ruling had already found that there was no justified basis for stopping wages. No new information that could lead to a different conclusion, such as an expert opinion from the UWV (Employee Insurance Agency), had been submitted.
It was also relevant that there was no evidence the employee had been informed in writing of a new wage stoppage, as required under Section 7:629(7) of the Dutch Civil Code. An employer wishing to stop wages during illness must inform the employee of this promptly and clearly.
The appeal only succeeded on the point concerning the amount of wages during illness. According to the Court of Appeal, the applicable collective labour agreement was not the CAO Glastuinbouw (Greenhouse Horticulture CLA) but the ABU CLA. Since it concerned the second year of illness, the employee was entitled under that CLA to 80% of his wages. The Court of Appeal therefore set the outstanding wages at EUR 382.43 gross per week.
The 50% statutory increase remains in place. The Court of Appeal considered this maximum increase justified, because the employee had already had to take the companies to court several times to be paid his wages during illness, while the companies had also failed to provide clarity about who exactly the employer was.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling shows that employers must be careful when using trade names and group companies. It must be clear to an employee with which legal entity they are entering into an employment contract. If several companies operate externally under the same trade name and it remains unclear to the employee which entity is their employer, that uncertainty is, in principle, at the expense and risk of the companies involved.
This ruling also confirms that stopping wages during illness cannot be applied lightly. The employer must be able to substantiate that the employee, without proper grounds, is not complying with their reintegration obligations. In addition, the employee must be informed of the wage stoppage in writing and in good time.
Finally, this ruling underlines that structural non-payment can have significant financial consequences. If an employee repeatedly has to go to court to receive their wages, a court may find grounds to award the maximum statutory increase of 50%.
Do you have questions about continued payment of wages during illness, reintegration, or who legally qualifies as the employer? Please feel free to contact one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
