A zero-hour contract ('nul-uren contract') can be ideal for employers and employees looking for flexibility in their work.
Zero-hour contracts
A zero-hours contract is unique because there's no agreement for specific or minimum work hours. The employer can call the employee to work whenever they have work. This can be in the form of a temporary or permanent zero-hours contract. Because of the high degree of flexibility, several rules are in place to protect the employee. One is the 'legal presumption of working hours' ('rechtsvermoeden arbeidsomvang'), as codified in article 7:610b of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC). The following case before the Subdistrict Court of The Hague clearly shows how that works and the nuances around zero-hour contracts.
The facts of the case
In this case, the employee claimed unpaid wages over several months. According to the employee, she had worked almost three times the hours approved by the employer. The employer disputed these extra hours and argued that the employee wrongly refused to disclose how she spent her time during the hours she declared.
Because the employee refused to explain the declared hours, the employer stopped scheduling and calling the employee to work. The employee also claimed unpaid wages over the period she wasn't called to work anymore.
Hour registration system
The court starts by saying that it is up to the employer to set up an hour registration system. This obligation is intended to protect the interests of the employee. In principle, such (proper) administration can then be relied on unless the employee shows that the data is incorrect. If there is no system or the employer's time records are inadequate or unusable, the employee's hours data can be relied on unless the employer proves otherwise. Because the employer could not prove otherwise, the court sided with the employee and awarded her wage claim.
Legal presumption of working hours
Regarding the period the employee wasn't called to work, the court applies the legal presumption of working hours as codified in article 7:610b DCC. This article states that if an employment contract has lasted for at least three months, the stipulated work in any month is presumed to be the average number of hours worked per month in the three preceding months (the reference period).
Contrary to the employee's argument of applying a longer reference period, the court used the three preceding months to calculate the wage claim.
Good employment practices
The court also added the following considerations. The nature of a zero-hours employment contract means that the employer, as a good employer, is obliged to provide work for its on-call workers unless there is a reasonable reason not to do so. This could be if there's insufficient work to employ the on-call workers. However, a dispute such as the one in this case is no reasonable argument for no longer calling the employee to work. After all, a professional employer could have been expected to be able to deal with the conflict situation that had arisen. The employer could and should have summoned the employee to work by making clear agreements about time registration from that moment on.
Since the employer did not try to schedule the employee for work, he did not act as a 'good employer' ('goed werkgeverschap') toward the employee. This 'bad behaviour' obligated the employer to continue paying the wages until the end of the employment contract.
This court decision shows the importance of accurate and transparent timekeeping and underscores the importance of 'good' employer practices.