Successive employers under Dutch law
The doctrine of successive employers (opvolgend werkgeverschap) ensures that the protections of the chain rule (ketenregeling) and the transition payment calculation cannot be circumvented simply by changing the formal employer. Under Article 7:668a(2) of the Dutch Civil Code, contracts with different employers count as links in the same chain if those employers are deemed to be each other's successors in relation to the work performed.
Free toolTransition payment calculatorThe statutory severance on dismissal or non-renewal, based on salary, holiday pay and bonus.Calculate the paymentTwo employers are successive employers (opvolgende werkgevers) when the employee performs substantially the same work, requiring substantially the same skills and abilities, for the new employer. In Van Tuinen/Wolters the Supreme Court also required that the new employer had sufficient insight into the employee's qualities and suitability (Supreme Court 11 May 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BV9603). For the transition payment, that second requirement no longer applies to changes of employer from 1 July 2015: Article 7:673(4)(b) of the Dutch Civil Code applies the rule regardless of such insight (Supreme Court 17 November 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2905).
Practical consequences under Dutch law
If successive employer status is established, the period of employment with the previous employer counts towards the three-year maximum and the three-contract limit. An employee who has worked for two years under two fixed-term contracts with employer A, and is then hired on a new fixed-term contract by employer B (who is the successor), will be entitled to a permanent contract after just one year with employer B - because the chain has already been running for two years.
The successive employer doctrine also applies for calculating the transition payment. All employment periods with successive employers are aggregated, which can significantly increase the transition payment on dismissal. Employers involved in restructurings, take-overs, or the use of agency workers converted to direct employment should assess the opvolgend werkgeverschap risk carefully.
Transfer of undertaking under Dutch employment law
In the event of a transfer of undertaking (overgang van onderneming), the successor employer automatically assumes all rights and obligations under the transferred employees' contracts by operation of law. The successive employer rules under Article 7:668a are additional to - not a replacement of - the transfer of undertaking regime.
The successive employer doctrine is also relevant for the calculation of statutory notice periods. Article 7:672(10) of the Dutch Civil Code provides that where different employers must reasonably be considered each other's successors in relation to the work performed, their employment contracts are deemed to constitute one continuous contract for the purpose of calculating the length of service. The practical consequence is that a new employer who takes on a worker from a predecessor employer cannot reset the seniority clock: the total period of continuous service, including time with previous linked employers, determines the applicable statutory notice period of one to four months under Article 7:672(2) of the Dutch Civil Code.
The statutory rule for the transition payment
For the transition payment (transitievergoeding), the length of the employment contract counts. Under Article 7:673(4)(b) of the Dutch Civil Code, the following are added together:
- earlier employment contracts between the same parties that followed each other with intervals of no more than six months; and
- employment contracts with different employers who, "regardless of whether there is insight into the qualities and suitability of the employee", must reasonably be regarded as each other's successors in respect of the work performed.
The intervals themselves do not count. If a transition payment has already been paid for a contract that now counts, it is deducted from the new payment (paragraph 5).
When is an employer a successor?
For the chain rule, the Supreme Court set two requirements: the new employment contract requires essentially the same skills and responsibilities, and there are such ties between the employers that the previous employer's insight into the employee can be attributed to the new employer (Supreme Court 11 May 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BV9603, Van Tuinen/Wolters). According to that judgment, the same work for a competitor is not enough.
For the transition payment, the second requirement now applies only to changes of employer before 1 July 2015. For later changes, the "ties" requirement has lapsed because of the words "regardless of whether there is insight" (Supreme Court 17 November 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2905). What remains is the question of whether the employee does essentially the same work for the new employer. That is a factual assessment: position, tasks, skills, responsibilities and workplace all play a role.
The initiative for an earlier end of employment
An earlier employment contract that the employee ended does not count for the aggregation, unless the employer acted in a seriously culpable way (Supreme Court 28 November 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1808). The Supreme Court derives this from the purpose of the transition payment and from the legislative history of the provision on successive employership. That case concerned a return to the same employer; for a move at the employee's own initiative to a different employer, the legislative history quoted points in the same direction, but the Supreme Court has not expressly decided on this.
The initiative also determines who owes the payment. The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch held that a temporary employment agency that took the initiative to end the employment contract had to pay the transition payment, even though the employee then went to work for the same client through a different agency. According to the court of appeal, successive employership is an indication, but not decisive; paragraph 5 in fact assumes that an earlier employer may have to pay (Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch 27 October 2016, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2016:4808).
Agency work and the move to the client
A temporary agency worker has an employment contract with the agency, not with the client (Article 7:690 of the Dutch Civil Code). If the agency worker then joins the client as an employee for the same work, successive employership is the obvious conclusion: the work is essentially the same and, for changes after 1 July 2015, insight into the employee is no longer required. We have not found a judgment of the Supreme Court or a court of appeal on this specific situation for the transition payment. The outcome must therefore be assessed case by case.
Two cases
In both cases the gross monthly salary is €3,200 with 8% holiday allowance: a monthly wage of €3,456, one third of which is €1,152 per year. The amounts have been checked with the calculation engine of the transition payment calculator.
Case 1: from agency worker to permanent employee of the client
| Period | Employer | Work | Ended at the initiative of | Counts? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Jan 2022 to 31 Dec 2023 | Agency | Warehouse worker at client X | Agency | To be assessed: successive employership |
| 1 Jan 2024 to 31 Jan 2024 | (interval of one month) | No, intervals never count | ||
| 1 Feb 2024 to 31 Jan 2026 | Client X | Warehouse worker, same tasks | Client X (not renewed) | Yes |
If client X is the successor of the agency, the length is four years and the transition payment is 4 × €1,152 = €4,608. If not, only the contract with X counts: two years, €2,304. The difference depends on the facts about the work; the calculator marks this result as provisional and shows both amounts.
Case 2: own departure, move and return
| Period | Employer | Ended at the initiative of | Counts? | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Mar 2018 to 28 Feb 2021 | A | Employee | No | Ended by the employee (HR 2025:1808) |
| 1 Mar 2021 to 31 May 2021 | Competitor B | Employee | No | Different employer, not a successor |
| 1 Jul 2021 to 30 Jun 2026 | A | A (notice) | Yes | Current employment contract |
There are four months between the first and the last contract with A, less than six. Even so, the first contract does not count, because the employee ended it. The length is five years and the transition payment 5 × €1,152 = €5,760. Had the interruption with A been longer than six months, the first contract would not have counted for that reason alone.
Transitional law for old contracts
For contracts that ended before 1 July 2015, different limits apply to the intervals: for an end before 1 July 2012, an interval of more than three months breaks the aggregation, and for an end before 1 July 2015 this depends on whether a contract for an indefinite period started within six months (article XXII(8) of the Wet werk en zekerheid, the Work and Security Act). A change of employer before 1 July 2015 is moreover assessed with both requirements of Van Tuinen/Wolters. The specifics for fixed-term contracts and illness are set out in transition payment on fixed-term contracts and transition payment and illness.
Key legal sources
- Article 7:672(10) of the Dutch Civil Code - treats contracts with successive employers as one continuous contract for calculating length of service
- Article 7:673 of the Dutch Civil Code (paragraphs 4 and 5)
- Article 7:690 of the Dutch Civil Code (temporary agency contract)
- Article XXII(8) Wet werk en zekerheid (transitional law)
- Supreme Court 11 May 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BV9603 (Van Tuinen/Wolters)
- Supreme Court 17 November 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2905 (test for the transition payment)
- Supreme Court 28 November 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1808 (earlier contract ended by the employee)
- Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch 27 October 2016, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2016:4808 (initiative and agency chains)