Amsterdam District Court, 28 October 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:7907
A remarkable ruling by Amsterdam District Court shows that concealing multiple jobs while employed full-time can have major financial consequences. The employee turned out to hold two other full-time positions alongside her job at Henkel Global Supply Chain (Henkel), and also worked incidentally for the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. In total, her working week came to around 120 hours.
Facts
The employee started working for Henkel on 1 September 2021, for 40 hours a week. Shortly afterwards, on 10 January 2022, she also started at ABN AMRO under an internship agreement, likewise for 40 hours a week. Just five days later, on 15 January 2022, she also started at Avery Dennison under a fixed-term employment contract, again for 40 hours a week. On top of this, she worked an unknown number of hours for the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
On 28 February 2022, the employee reported sick to Henkel and subsequently received continued wages during illness for two years. On 28 April 2022, she also reported sick to ABN AMRO and Avery Dennison, after which she received sickness benefits. It was not until June 2024 that Henkel learned, via the UWV (Employee Insurance Agency), that the employee had been simultaneously active at other employers. These facts came to light after the employee applied for a WIA (occupational disability) benefit. Henkel then confronted her with this information.
Ruling of the subdistrict court
The employee argued that Henkel had known about and given permission for the other jobs. The subdistrict court considered this insufficiently substantiated, and even found it unlikely that Henkel had given permission. Her argument that she could manage all three jobs well during the coronavirus lockdown was also rejected. The subdistrict court ruled that the employee had seriously failed in her duty as a good employee towards her employer.
Although the right to freely choose one’s work carries significant weight, it is limited by the Working Hours Act and the duty of good employeeship set out in Section 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code. The subdistrict court considered taking on such extensive secondary work without discussing it with Henkel beforehand to be a serious breach of the duty of good employeeship.
Conclusion
In the proceedings, Henkel claimed repayment of EUR 77,260.67 in wages paid without legal basis, under Section 7:629(5) of the Dutch Civil Code, but that legal basis did not hold up. The subdistrict court supplemented Henkel’s legal basis of its own motion and granted the claim regardless, this time based on the duty of good employeeship under Section 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code. The employee was ordered to pay damages of just over EUR 73,000, plus legal costs of just over EUR 3,000.
This ruling underlines that employers must stay alert to breaches of the Working Hours Act and the importance of clear agreements on secondary employment. Do you have questions about this? Our employment lawyers are happy to help.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
