Temporary agency work has limits: when does “temporary” end?

Long-term assignment with a single hirer 

In the case at hand, a temporary agency worker had been working for the same hirer via a temporary work agency since June 2018. From November 2019 onwards, he worked continuously at the same location. No end date had ever been agreed for the assignment. 

When the assignment ended in October 2025, the worker argued that the agency arrangement had been misused and that, in reality, a lasting employment relationship existed with the hirer. The court agreed. 

Although there was no sham arrangement, the arrangement t itself was genuine,the court held that the duration and structure of the assignment could no longer be regarded as temporary.

European and national legal framework 

The court assessed the case in light of the European Temporary Agency Work Directive, which requires Member States to prevent abuse of temporary agency work. While the directive does not set a fixed maximum duration, itdoes establish clear boundaries: long-term or successive assignments must not evolve into a permanent situation. 

This approach was confirmed by the Dutch Supreme Court in the so-called Upfield judgment of 21 November 2025. The Court held that even a single long-term assignment can constitute abuse if it can no longer be regarded as temporary and no convincing justification is provided. A general need for flexibility is not sufficient.

Three years as an important benchmark 

Although Dutch law does not provide for an explicit maximum hiring period, the subdistrict court aligns itself with the chain provision in Article 7:668a of the Dutch Civil Code. Under this rule, an employment relationship is generally no longer regarded temporary after three years. 

Accordingly, a continuous assignment of 36 months with the same hirer serves as a guiding principle. Beyond that point, the employer must be able to demonstrate why the work can still be regarded temporary. 

This approach is line with fothcoming legislation being prepared by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, which introduces a statutory maximum term of 36 months, after which the hirer may be required to offer a permanent contract.

Collective labour agreement rules offer no escape 

Employers cannot rely on the ABU collective labour agreement (CLA) in this context. Under the former ABU CLA, Phase B could (on a transitional basis) last up to four years, while under the current CLA the maximum is three years, after which the worker enters Phase C with a permanent contract with the temporary work agency. 

However, these timeframes apply only to the employment relationship between the worker and the tempporary work agency. They say nothing about how long the worker may be assigned to the same hirer. 

In other words, having a permanent contract with the temporary work agency does not automatically mean that the assignment with the hirer is still temporary.

No objective justification 

The fact that long-term use of temporary agency workers is common in certain sectors carried little weight with the court. Structural staff shortages, night shifts, or general reliance on migrant labour do not justify deploying a worker via temporary agency work for more than seven consecutive years. 

Importantly, the consequences of such choices may not be passed on to the worker—especially where the worker was  continuously available and had even sought direct employment with the hirer.

The outcome: a permanent employment contract 

The court concluded that: 

• as of 18 June 2021, an employment contract for an indefinite period had arisen between the worker and the hirer;
• the termination of the assignment in 2025 qualified as an irregular dismissal;
• the worker is entitled to reinstatement and back pay, insofar as this concerns the difference between what he already received via the temporary work  agency (there is no double salary payment). 

The employer’s defence based on the duty to complain was also rejected. The worker had filed his claim within one month after the relevant case law development (Upfield). 

What does this ruling mean in practice? 

For organisations that make extensive use of temporary agency workers, this ruling is an important signal. It is essential to critically review the composition of the workforce. 

• First, map out which temporary agency workers are active within the organisation and how long they have been working there. 
• Next, assess which roles are structurally filled by temporary agency workers and whether there is a sound, objective justification for this. 

Failing to carry out this analysis increases the risk that a temporary agency worker will successfully claim a permanent position. This can have significant legal and financial consequences.

Do you have questions about how these developments apply to your organisation, or would you like to discuss your flexible workforce strategy? Please contact Lianne Halls per email.