Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135) - Netherlands (Ratification: 1975)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Recalling that according to paragraph 17(1) of the Workers’ Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143), trade union representatives who are not employed in the undertaking but whose trade union has members employed therein should be granted access to the undertaking, the Committee requests the Government to inform on the outcomes of the discussion due to take place at the Parliament. The Committee further requests the Government to continue informing about the content of collective agreements in this respect.

Article 5. Coexistence of trade union representatives and elected representatives in the same undertaking. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to reply to FNV’s concern that the 2013 amendment to the Works Council Act ended the equality between trade union members and non-union members regarding the nomination process for works council elections. The amendment allows individual workers to nominate themselves without needing support, while trade union members must submit a list of supporters for the same position. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indications that: (i) this requirement was removed to reduce barriers for workers to stand for election and address the issue of unfilled vacancies in the Works Council; and (ii) the trade unions still have the right to hand in a list of candidates and the only prerequisite is that they consult their members on the list of candidates the outcome, of the consultation of the members not being binding for the trade union.

The Committee finally refers to its comment under the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98), 1949 in which it requests the Government to provide information on the possibility under the Dutch system to engage in collective bargaining with work councils rather than with trade unions

Previous comment

New legislation adopted. The Committee notes that a new Civil Code has entered into force on 1 September 2021.

Article 1 of the Convention. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the legal sanctions and remedies applicable in case of infringements of section 1615h of the Civil Code then in force – prohibiting the termination of the labour relation due to a worker’s affiliation to, or membership of, a worker’s representative organization or due to his/her engaging in activities for the same. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that former section 1615h of the Civil Code is reflected in section 670.3 of the new Civil Code and that there are no sanctions nor remedies attached to the violation of this section. The Government further indicates that section 649a.1 of the Civil Code prohibits discrimination based on a worker’s affiliation to, or membership of, a worker’s representative organization and is broader in scope than section 670.3. The Government also indicates that pursuant to section 649a.2 of the Civil Code, without prejudice to section 670.3, termination of the employment contract by the employer is voidable when the employee has invoked a violation of section 649a.1. While taking note of these provisions, the Committee recalls that the Government shall ensure effective protection to workers’ representatives in the undertaking against any act prejudicial to them and based on any of the motives specified in Article 1 and that such acts do not limit themselves to the termination of employment. It therefore requests the Government to provide information on whether infringements upon sections 670.3 or 649a of the Civil Code may lead to other remedies and sanctions than the annulment of the termination of employment.

Article 2. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to formalize some facilities concerning the access of the trade union leaders to the workplace of the employer and the distribution of union materials in the private sector. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indications that the issue has been included in some collective agreements, but there are no laws governing access to the workplace by the trade union leaders and that employers remain free to grant such access. Recalling that according to Article 2 of the Convention facilities in the undertakings shall be afforded to workers’ representatives as may be appropriate, in order to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this respect. It also requests the Government to provide a copy of the collective agreements addressing this question.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) in a communication received on 28 August 2014.

Article 2 of the Convention. Access of workers’ representatives to the workplace. The Committee had previously invited the Government to discuss the issue of access of trade union representatives to industrial premises, with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, with a view to ensuring that, without impairing the efficient operation of the undertaking, access to the workplace is granted to workers’ representatives in so far as it is appropriate to enable them to carry out their representation function. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in July 2013 the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations (represented in the Labour Foundation) were consulted on compliance and enforcement of collective agreements, and that, in the process of implementation of the recommendations that resulted from this consultation, the Government will discuss with these organizations the issue of access of trade union representatives to industrial premises. The Committee notes that the FNV adds that access to premises in companies where the union has not yet a high number of members still constitutes a major problem, particularly in sectors with a large number of subcontractors and migrant workers, and hinders trade union work in terms of enforcement and compliance control of collective agreements; and that the Government is developing legislation that will allow it to share with the trade union information received through the public inspection service, which, while not addressing the issue of access, will improve the ability of unions to exert their influence. The Committee trusts that the discussions in this regard with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, which the Government indicates are scheduled as a follow-up to the 2013 consultation, will be held in the near future, and requests the Government to report on the outcome.

Article 5. Coexistence of trade union representatives and elected representatives in the same undertaking. The Committee notes that the FNV denounces that the July 2013 amendment of the Works Councils Act put an end to the equality between trade union members and non-members as regards the procedure and requirements for nomination as eligible works’ council members. Prior to the amendment, all candidates, whether on the list of trade union candidates or on the list of independent candidates, needed to be supported by a number of workers and provide proof of such support. The new legislation allows any individual worker to nominate himself/herself without any proof of support, whereas the threshold for trade unions and members to submit a list remains high, thus undermining the position of the trade union. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in respect to the FNV’s observations.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, in which it once again explains that provisions of collective labour agreements that “infringe on the employer’s territory” will not be declared compulsorily applicable as they may be unduly prejudicial to the legitimate interests of unorganized employers in the sector governed by the collective agreement. The Committee once again invites the Government to discuss the issue of access of trade union representatives to industrial premises with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) in a communication dated 25 November 2004. The Committee notes that these comments refer to a question raised in its 2004 direct request, and requests the Government to send its observations thereon.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report which contains observations on the comments of the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV). The Committee also notes the comments made by the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CNV) and the Trade Union Federation for Middle and Higher Level Employees (MHP) on the Government’s report.

The Committee notes that under the Review Framework for declaring collective agreements applicable, provisions which "infringe on the employer’s territory" (understood as both the territory on which the company is established as well as the communication and consultation structure within the company) are not eligible to be declared compulsorily applicable (such provisions include, for instance, access of certain organisations to industrial premises). The Committee takes note of this information and invites the Government to discuss the issue of access of trade union representatives to industrial premises with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to send its response to the comments on the application of the Convention, dated 4 November 2002, made by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV).

Noting that the Government has not yet sent a reply to this observation, the Committee observes that the FNV states the following. Within the framework of its policy, the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment categorically excludes to declare generally applicable the provisions of the collective agreements on trade union representation and facilities in the undertaking, despite being requested to do so by the parties to the agreements. The FNV is of the view that trade unions should be allowed adequate room for representation and communication at the workplace as long as the order and the operation of the undertaking are not disturbed. It considers that this results implicitly from the international standards on freedom of association. While it recognizes that these standards do not impose the adoption of statutory provisions to this end, the FNV states that it seems incompatible with freedom of association to deny an erga omnes effect to the provisions of the collective agreements concerned, on the grounds that such provisions, as the authorities put it, "infringe upon the employer’s territory".

The Committee invites the Government to discuss the matter with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

1. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report. The Committee notes with satisfaction that article 670, paragraph 5, of Book 7 of the Civil Code as amended by the Flexibility and Security Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 1998, 300), now affords legal protection not only to members of works councils but also to trade union representatives and affiliates by prohibiting their dismissal for anti-union reasons.

The Committee notes the observation on the application of the Convention made by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) dated 4 November 2002 and requests the Government to send its comments in this respect. The Committee notes also that these comments refer also to Convention No. 98 and will be dealt with in the framework of the examination of its application.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

See under Convention No. 98, as follows:

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. It has received a communication by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) on the application of the Convention and asks the Government to make its comments in its next report.

Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the Government's report that a draft legislation has been presented to the Parliament, to the effect of amending article 670, paragraph 5, of the Civil Code and providing for a protection against dismissal on the grounds of trade union membership or activities. The Committee hopes that the present draft will provide sanctions, sufficiently dissuasive, so as to ensure the full application of Article 1 of the Convention (please refer to paragraphs 223 and 224 of the General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994). It asks the Government to keep it informed on the matter.

The Committee also recalls that it had asked the Government to indicate the manner in which workers' organizations are protected (in particular through dissuasive sanctions) against acts of interference by employers' organizations and vice versa, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. Given that the Government only refers to interference in the framework of the collective bargaining, the Committee asks the Government to give more details on this issue.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's report. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's statement that Bill No. 21479 to amend the legislation on dismissal and prohibiting dismissal for carrying out trade union activities is under discussion in the First Chamber.

The Committee would request the Government to send a copy of Bill No. 21479 along with its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the comments made by the Netherlands Trade Union Federation (FNV) regarding the protection and facilities that should be afforded to the workers' representatives referred to in Article 3 of the Convention.

The Committee notes that the Government repeats its previous statement that there is no obligation under the Convention, as is clear from Article 4, on States that have ratified it to provide protection and facilities to both the categories of workers' representatives defined in Article 3.

The FNV again observes that both the categories of workers' representatives referred to in Article 3 should receive the facilities and protection established in the Convention, and that Bill No. 21479 to amend the legislation on dismissal and prohibiting dismissal for carrying out trade union activities does not change the existing legislation which protects only members of works councils (established in accordance with the Act respecting enterprises with fewer than 35 workers).

The Committee notes Bill No. 21479 and asks the Government to inform it of the adoption of the Bill in its next report.

With regard to the FNV's comment, the Committee has already pointed out that, in the light of the wording of Article 4 of the Convention which permits a certain flexibility in the choice of workers' representatives, the present system does not infringe the requirements of the Convention. It recalls, however, that it is important to apply a reasonable criterion to ensure that workers' representatives in certain small enterprises are not denied the protection and facilities laid down in the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee takes note of the comments of the Confederation of Netherlands Trade Union Movement (FNV) and the Government's reply thereto concerning the granting of protection and facilities to both categories of workers' representatives mentioned in Article 3 of the Convention.

The FNV observes that only members of works councils (set up, by law, in firms employing at least 35 workers) are entitled to the legal protection and facilities referred to in the Convention and that even if collective agreements can include provision of such facilities and protection in small businesses having less than 35 employees, the agreements do not cover all enterprises and do not give full protection because they are limited in time. The FNV considers that both categories of employee representatives mentioned in Article 3 should receive the facilities and protection set out in the Convention; it regrets that the Government, which had previously agreed with this approach, has now changed its position. It adds that discussions are being held in the tripartite Labour Foundation regarding the possibility of issuing a recommendation to employers to afford broad coverage, but the FNV believes that any such recommendation would not be binding and would be no more than a guide-line for negotiations.

The Government points out that the Convention, in Article 3, defines two categories of workers' representatives which may benefit from the provisions of the Convention; the Convention does not oblige ratifying States to grant protection and facilities to both categories, as is clear from the terms of Article 4. It states that it has determined, by legislation, which type of workers' representatives should be entitled to the benefits of the Convention, namely members of works councils.

The Committee notes that the Convention permits a certain flexibility in the choice of workers' representatives to enjoy its provisions, subject to the special protection of trade union representatives set out in Article 5. Given the clear wording of Article 4, the Committee considers that the present system does not infringe the requirements of the Convention. However, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that since certain workers' representatives in small enterprises risk having no coverage - either by legislation or collective agreements - a criterion of reasonableness should apply to ensure that they are not denied the protection and facilities provided for in the Convention.