Introduction
This overview accompanies the main article on works council (WOR) proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber and contains all 105 analysed decisions, ordered by theme.
Multinational reorganisations and group relationships
A group subsidiary must weigh interests independently
Micro Focus NL (2025), Group strategy is not decisive; the local subsidiary must weigh interests and provide information independently, even where the internal organisation runs along functional lines. Watts Industries NL (2013), A group subsidiary may not confine itself to passing on the parent's decision; an independent weighing of interests is required. Uniface/Marlin Equity (2017), Private equity acquisition; signing protocol executed before advice was sought; the advisory process a mere formality; full package of measures including VBV.
Spotify NL (2023), Atlassian (2023), Nalco/Delden (2016), ERS Railways (2017), Canon Europa (2015), Bekaert Combustion (2021), Brink's Nederland (2015).
Co-entrepreneurship (Section 1(1)(d) WOR)
Seaway Heavy Lifting/Goldman Sachs (2016), An advisory engagement exploring a share transfer is subject to advice; the shareholder as co-entrepreneur. NS Reizigers/Zutphen (2002), NS as co-entrepreneur in a concession decision. Martinair/Cargo Plan B (2015), Co-entrepreneurship must be raised during the advisory process, not only in the petition; manifestly unreasonable ≠ automatic provisions.
Continuity of employee participation on integration
TNT/FedEx COR (2017), The continuity of employee participation must be addressed on integration; withdrawal limited to the employee-participation consequences.
Political primacy (Section 46d WOR)
Politie ZSM (2018), Political primacy over the police task; choice of location for ZSM (confirmed by the Supreme Court). GOR Rijk/Fellenoord (2018), Central government accommodation (confirmed by the Supreme Court). Staat/SSC HRM (2003), Scope of political primacy in a structural reallocation of ministerial tasks. Gemeente Diemen/DUO+ (2015), Political primacy is absolute; the supra-statutory right of advice under Section 32 does not affect this. Gemeente Maastricht/SSC-ZL (II) (2017), The supra-statutory right of advice under Section 32 confers no right of appeal where political primacy applies (HR:2019:397). Gevangeniswezen (2003), Section 46d: advice only on the staffing consequences.
IND/GVL-locatiekeuze (2018), Gemeente Alphen a/d Rijn (2021), Provincie Limburg (2012), PI Amsterdam/DJI (2015), Gemeente Amsterdam/Stadsbank (2016), Gemeente Achtkarspelen (2024).
Qualification as a decision subject to advice (Section 25(1) WOR)
Broad interpretation
Insight NL (2023), Eliminating a single management position can be subject to advice where the consequences are significant (70 employees affected). NS/Abellio (2016), A governance restructuring of a subsidiary is a decision "by" the parent where it is driven by group-wide interests; Section 25(1)(e). Cordaid/Enviu (2013), Long-term cooperation under Section 25(1)(b): termination is subject to advice.
AH Online (2022), Group hiring-in of labour under Section 25(1)(g) (note: partly quashed by the Supreme Court, HR:2023:1514). Stadsdeel Zuid (2012), 11% redundancy = significant downsizing (note: HR:2013:1139).
Strict interpretation / not subject to advice
KLM/-1CA (2017), A productivity measure that costs no jobs is not subject to advice. DA Retailgroep (2016), The right of advice is in principle incompatible with the task of a trustee in bankruptcy (HR:2017:982). STG/Agio (KPMG) (2020), Section 25(1)(n): a support engagement ≠ an advisory engagement.
Permar/BlueView (2016), A customer relationship ≠ long-term cooperation under Section 25(1)(b). Lantor/Euroresins (2022), 5% of turnover = not significant enough.
Duty to give reasons (Section 25(3) and (5) WOR)
Teijin Aramid (2014), "Why 22 FTE?" left unanswered = manifestly unreasonable. KNAW/non-humane primaten (2024), A decision of principle does not dispense with a concrete weighing of interests for staff. Provincie Zuid-Holland/GZH (2015), Phasing may not lead to an information deficit; a before-and-after table is required. eScience Center (2025), Reasonable time: the entrepreneur must set deadlines for the advisory process.
Standard Aero/Tilburg (2018), AkzoNobel Deventer (2014), Svitzer Euromed (2018), Biscuits Delacre (2001), GCA/Asielzoekers (2017), KNAW/ICIN (2014), MDCA/Ziekenhuis Amstelland (2014), Gemeente Maastricht/SSC-ZL (2018), Volksbond Streetcornerwork (2019).
Fait accompli and phased decision-making
Fait accompli
Reinier Haga (2016), A fait accompli is by definition manifestly unreasonable. Fundis/LLZ (2014), Implementation before the conditions precedent have been fulfilled = fait accompli.
AVEBE/COR (2005), Atlassian (2023).
Phased decision-making
NCRV/KRO-NCRV fusie (2013), Phasing may not lead to an irreversible decision without a genuine moment for advice. Abeos Agri (2020), An SLA as an implementing decision is independently subject to advice (Linge doctrine).
Canon/Utility Hosting (2018), An earlier advisory process offers no perpetual protection. IBM/Project Vilis (2013), A post-decision change to pensions requires fresh advice. Mohringer/Schindler (2018), Phased decision-making is permitted where the works council is involved in good time.
Supra-statutory rights (Section 32 WOR)
De Grote Rivieren (2008), Withdrawing a supra-statutory right of advice requires sound reasons.
Thomas Cook/TCN (2016), Frustrating the right of nomination to the supervisory board = manifestly unreasonable. Limgroup/RvC (2019), Departure from the supra-statutory right of advice under Section 32(2) sufficiently reasoned; appeal dismissed.
Measures and provisions
Standard package (withdrawal + prohibition)
Spotify NL (2023), Atlassian (2023), Nalco/Delden (2016), Cordaid/Enviu (2013), ERS Railways (2017), Teijin Aramid (2014), Watts Industries (2013), Goeree-Overflakkee/SVHW (2012), Standard Aero/Tilburg (2018), Bekaert Combustion (2021), KNAW/primaten (2024), Volksbond Streetcornerwork (2019), MDCA/Ziekenhuis Amstelland (2014), Fundis/LLZ (2014).
Full package including provisional enforceability
Uniface/Marlin Equity (2017), KNAW/ICIN (2014), Gemeente Maastricht/SSC-ZL (2018), AVEBE/COR (2005), Micro Focus NL (2025).
Limited or creative provisions
Brink's Nederland (2015), Declaration of unreasonableness (VVR) without further provisions in view of a continuity risk. Martinair/Cargo Plan B (2015), Manifestly unreasonable but no provisions; the defect cured by a loan commitment. Assa Abloy/R&D (2021), Cure doctrine: the defect cured by conducting an advisory process after all.
APM Terminals MVII (2018), A trade union agreement blocks provisions (Section 26(5)). TopCraft/Dinkelland (2015), Third-party interests block withdrawal. KFI/Spare Parts (2016), Withdrawal limited to the termination of employment contracts. AkzoNobel Deventer (2014), VVR only. eScience Center (2025), VVR only (the works council had sought only a VVR). TintelTuin (2013), VVR without further provisions where there was a procedural shortcoming but the decision was not unreasonable on the merits. Philips Lighting Weert (2006), A breach of Section 24 ≠ manifestly unreasonable where advice was sought in good time.
Works council appeal dismissed: no breach / not unreasonable
RBV Leaf (2002), O-I Manufacturing (2018), Abeos/CVAB (2023), NS Reizigers (2003), Biblionet Groningen (2013), Laurus/Sperwer (2001), AH e-Commerce/Barendrecht (2023), AH e-Commerce/Zwolle (2024), Combiwel Amsterdam (2012), De Muzerie (2013), Orionis Walcheren (2013), Open Universiteit (2013), DHL Finance (2014), Gastec Holding (2004), Tweede Kamer/Stafbureau (2015), HTM Personenvervoer (2017), Lucertis/IWAL (2018), Honeywell/FOM (2017), MCL/horeca (2017), OBA Group (2020), Kalorama (2011), HTM/Qbuzz (2012), Gezondheidsraad/SGR (2019), Min. V&J/DEA (2017), PostNL/NRP2 (2021), ING Bank/Agile (2018), Holland Casino (2017), Medtronic (2022), ILT/inspecteurs-vlieger (2014), SABIC (2024), VU/Religie (2020), De Friesland/Achmea (2018), Erasmus MC (2019), Emmen/sluiting (2015).
Inadmissible / miscellaneous
MTEE/Mitsubishi (2021), A novum must exist before the decision. CBB/Arcus College (2014), An oral decision starts the time limit. Rhenus Air (2017), Pension implementation = right of consent under Section 27, not Section 25. NLW Groep (2024), A presentation ≠ a decision. Sitech Services (2019), Delay = implementation, not a new decision.