More and more employees want to work from home part-time or full-time, but what if your employer suddenly changes its mind? On April 21, 2025, the NRC published an article by journalist Tan Tunali in which employment law attorney Stijn Blom of Arbeidsadvocaat.nl explains the legal aspects of work-from-home arrangements. This is a familiar dilemma that is becoming increasingly common in practice: an employee has been working partly from home for some time, but is suddenly subject to a policy requiring them to return to the office for the majority of their work. What are the legal implications?
Using a real-world example, the article illustrates how tensions can arise between the individual wishes of employees and the interests of teams and organizations. Stijn Blom addresses questions such as: Is there a right to work from home? When does a right become vested? And what may or may not an employer unilaterally change?
Below is the full article from NRC dated April 21, 2025, written by Tan Tunali. It discusses the tension between individual preferences and organizational interests regarding remote work, as well as what labor law has to say on the matter. The full article from NRC can be found at the bottom of the page.
Article: Help! My boss suddenly wants me to come into the office more often. What should I do? Published in NRC on April 21, 2025 – Tan Tunali
Mr. Stijn Blom, an employment law attorney at Arbeidsadvocaat.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and assists employers and employees on a daily basis with a wide range of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight contracts and policies—with his practical and personalized approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to learn more? Visit Stijn’s page.
Help! My boss suddenly wants me to come into the office more often. What should I do?
Work-from-home policies are becoming increasingly common, but they remain a challenge, as employers must balance the interests of individual employees, the team, and the organization.
Dilemma
I work as the manager of a “self-managing team,” and I alternate between working from home and at the office. This summer, I plan to move, and because of the long commute, I’d like to be in the office only one or two days every two weeks. In response, my boss presented me with an internal policy stating that I must be physically present 60 percent of the time. What should I do?
Woman (45), name known to the editors
Mutual Agreements
“My freedom ends where yours begins” is a saying Marjolijn Feringa grew up with. As an interim director and executive team coach, she regularly cites it in discussions between employers and employees regarding requests to work from home. What she means is that you can’t just look at an employee’s individual interests. Ultimately, employers and employees must decide together how and where the work can best be done. And that depends on the nature of the work and the company culture.
According to Feringa, there are always three parties with their own interests: the individual employee, the team, and the organization as a whole. “Everyone’s interests matter, and it’s important to reconcile those interests,” says Feringa. “That’s not always easy, because when you start a job, you agree on what you’ll be doing, but usually not exactly how.” In this regard, an employer is entitled to set certain requirements, argues Feringa, who notes that an employer cannot simply ignore an employee’s needs.
“A rule like the 60 percent rule seems fair, but is, of course, very arbitrary”
Marjolijn Feringa – Executive Coach
Although most large companies have implemented a work-from-home policy since the COVID-19 pandemic, this still often causes problems. “If one colleague says, ‘I’ll only come into the office on Mondays and Tuesdays,’ and another colleague says they’ll only come in on other days, you’ll never run into each other,” says Feringa. And that turns out to be important. “When you know each other in person, you’re more inclined to help one another.” That benefits the organization as a whole. Just like the casual conversations at the coffee machine. “Those are great for discussing informal matters, but they also often lead to good ideas,” says Feringa.
As a coach, she sees how many companies are trying to strike a balance between the wishes of employees—who, for all sorts of reasons (“I can work just fine from home,” “commute time,” “kids’ swimming lessons”)—increasingly want to work from home, and the need to meet in person. This is often laid out in policies with strict percentage requirements. “A 60-percent rule like that is, of course, very arbitrary. It seems fair, and many companies think it will save them the hassle. But the focus should, of course, be on how we can best organize our work.”
According to Feringa, it’s important to first determine what kind of work actually needs to be done, where it can best be done, and what suits the company. “If I need to focus on a specific task, it’s nice not to have to sit in an open-plan office. If I have a large meeting with people from all over the country, it might actually be more efficient to hold it online. And if you want to brainstorm together, that’s actually better done in the office.”
Acquired right
Labor law attorney Stijn Blom also frequently encounters this balancing of interests in his work. He emphasizes that there is no legal right to work from home. “Under the Flexible Working Act, you can submit a request to your employer to work from home, but ultimately, it is the employer who decides.” Because there are no clear guidelines in this area, it remains a gray area. A bill that would have addressed this issue stalled in the Senate a year and a half ago.
In employment law, there are frequent references to reasonableness and fairness—prerequisites for good employment practices on the part of both employees and employers. Once you’ve reached an agreement that you may work from home (part of the time), this can become what’s known as an “acquired right.” “At that point, it has become a term of employment, and an employer would have to be in a very strong position to justify why that wouldn’t be possible,” says Blom. The attorney notes that there are criteria for this. “Among other things, they’ll look at how long someone has been working from home and whether other colleagues are also allowed to do so.”
“If someone doesn’t meet their targets, an employer might say, ‘We want you to come into the office more often.’”
Stijn Blom – Employment Law Attorney
“So an internal policy like that could very well be valid,” says Blom. “The question is whether working from home has become an acquired right and whether the employer has a sufficient interest to be allowed to change that.”
Blom knows that disputes over working from home rarely end up in court. “When they do, it’s often related to the employee’s poor performance. For example, if someone isn’t meeting their targets, an employer might say, ‘We want you to come into the office more often.’”
According to Blom and Feringa, another factor at play in these kinds of dilemmas is the tight labor market and the demands that employees can make as a result. “The Netherlands is a leader in remote work, and employers generally take a pretty flexible approach to it,” says Blom. Large companies that want to attract young talent really have no choice but to offer these conditions. Blom: “You simply won’t attract young talent anymore if you don’t offer very flexible, trendy employment conditions.”
So
There is no legal right to work from home, so whether you can do so depends entirely on the arrangements you make with your employer. These arrangements must take into account the interests of the individual employee, the team, and the entire organization. If you’ve been working remotely for some time, it may have become a term of employment, but that’s not necessarily the case. So make sure everything is clear before the situation becomes untenable.