top of page

Wtta fining policy: highest standard fine for misclassifying the working relationship

Writer: Joost van Ladesteijn
Joost van Ladesteijn
5 days ago
2 min read

On 6 November 2026, Minister Vijlbrief (Social Affairs and Employment) sent the Dutch House of Representatives his progress letter on strengthening the position of labour migrants. Annex 5 to that letter follows up on a commitment made by Minister Aartsen to MP Patijn during the plenary debate on the statutory presumption of employment. Patijn asked whether higher fines are possible where workers are wrongly labelled as self-employed, thereby evading the Act on the admission of the provision of workers (Wtta).

What does the annex say about fines?

According to the annex, the fining policy under the Wtta was recently adopted. Under that policy, the Netherlands Labour Authority will fine 'miskwalificatie van de arbeidsrelatie' (misclassification of the working relationship) more heavily than other breaches. This covers presenting or recording the relationship incorrectly compared with the actual situation, for example when workers are designated as self-employed while an investigation shows that workers are in fact being provided to a hirer. In such cases the standard fine is raised to the level applying to a breach of the ban on providing or hiring workers or the admission requirement, which the annex describes as the highest standard fine under the Wtta. The fine can be imposed per misclassified worker. Supervision of the admission requirement starts on 1 January 2028.

The statutory test for providing workers

Whether workers are being provided does not depend on the label the parties use. The test is Article 1(1)(c) of the Waadi: making workers available to another party for remuneration, to perform work under that party's supervision and direction, other than under an employment contract concluded with that party. That definition does not require an employment contract between the lender (uitlener) and the worker. The annex, too, stresses that the actual working conditions are decisive.

Classification concerns the contract

The annex refers to re-inspections to check whether the relationship 'has since been correctly classified'. Legally, the issue is the interpretation and classification of the contract. In its Deliveroo judgment of 24 March 2023 (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:443), the Dutch Supreme Court held that if the agreed rights and obligations meet the statutory definition of an employment contract within the meaning of Article 7:610 Dutch Civil Code, the contract must be classified as such.

Practical tips

  • For each engagement, identify who exercises supervision and direction; if that is someone other than the party engaging the worker, there may be a provision of workers within the meaning of the Waadi.

  • Assess for each contract whether the agreed and actual rights and obligations meet the definition in Article 7:610 Dutch Civil Code, rather than relying on its label.

  • Use the period until 1 January 2028 to review chains of lenders (uitleners) and hirers (inleners) and to check that only admitted lenders are used.

Read more on this topic in our knowledge base, including our item on the Wtta. Questions about your own situation? Contact us.

This blog provides general information and is not legal advice. For advice on a specific situation, please contact us.

bottom of page