Booking works council appeals over office requirement
The works council is challenging the decision requiring Booking employees to spend at least 40 per cent of their working time in the office.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
Booking.com’s works council is appealing against the ruling that allowed the company to introduce a mandatory attendance policy. The case concerns how much scope an employer has to tighten hybrid working arrangements when the works council does not agree.
On 28 October, the Amsterdam district court granted Booking substitute consent for the new policy. The main measure is that employees must spend at least 40 per cent of their working time in the office. The ruling is provisionally enforceable, allowing Booking to introduce the policy while an appeal is pending.
Booking argued that regular attendance is necessary for collaboration, knowledge-sharing and innovation. According to the ruling, after consultations with the works council, the company reduced its original proposal of 50 to 60 per cent attendance to 40 per cent. Booking also undertook to expand workstations, meeting rooms and canteen capacity.
The works council refused to agree. According to the judge, it referred, among other things, to an employee survey to which 2,857 of more than 6,000 employees responded. The works council warned of additional travel time, less scope for caring responsibilities, possible monitoring through access-card and network data, and insufficient workstations on busy days.
The district court ruled that Booking had a reasonable interest in the attendance requirement and that the works council’s objections did not outweigh it. At the same time, the judge noted that not all of the approximately 6,000 employees could have a workstation at the same time. Booking must therefore ensure a clear distribution of attendance across the week.
The appeal concerns hybrid working and the role of the works council. The case does not mean that every employer may automatically impose a fixed percentage of office days: the judge considered the balancing of interests, the consultation process and the specific circumstances at Booking. The precise arguments and timetable for the appeal have not yet been made public in the sources consulted.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The district court granted Booking substitute consent for a policy requiring at least 40 per cent attendance in the office.
- The works council had refused consent and has appealed against the decision.
- The judge identified collaboration, knowledge-sharing and innovation as interests of Booking and also pointed to concerns about the availability of workstations.
Left
Arguments An employer should restrict working from home only where there is a demonstrable need to do so; travel time, caring responsibilities, autonomy and privacy carry significant weight.
Values Employee participation, equal access to work and protection against unnecessary monitoring.
Consequences An office requirement may disadvantage employees with caring responsibilities or long commutes and may make hybrid working less inclusive.
Centre
Arguments Employers may adapt their organisation, but they must provide careful justification, consult employees and take account of the practical consequences for staff.
Values Proportionality, legal certainty and workable employee participation.
Consequences A moderate standard such as 40 per cent may be workable, provided that workstations, scheduling and monitoring are transparent.
Right
Arguments The employer is responsible for collaboration, corporate culture and productivity and must therefore be able to determine how work is organised.
Values Entrepreneurship, management responsibility and scope for business decisions.
Consequences Giving a works council too much influence could delay necessary organisational decisions and weaken collaboration at a distance.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The ruling, the 40-per-cent requirement and the works council’s main objections can be found in public sources. The appeal is reported by a second independent source; procedural details remain limited.
- confirmed The Amsterdam district court granted Booking substitute consent for at least 40 per cent attendance in the office. — The judiciary and the published ruling mention 40-per-cent attendance and substitute consent. source
- confirmed The ruling was delivered publicly on 28 October 2026. — The ruling gives 28 October 2026 as the date of publication. source
- confirmed The works council referred to a survey with 2,857 responses from more than 6,000 employees. — This is stated in the published ruling. source
- confirmed The works council is appealing. — This was reported by Consilio Tax & Law in a report dated 5 November 2026. source
Editor's note
The ruling and the main elements of the policy have been publicly confirmed. The date of the appeal and the full grounds of appeal are not set out in the sources consulted.Sources
- Rechtbank stelt Booking.com in het gelijk over thuiswerkbeleid — Rechtspraak
- Booking krijgt vervangende toestemming voor aanscherping thuiswerkbeleid — Nieuwsbrief Medezeggenschap
- Twee dagen naar kantoor? Soms mag je baas dat eisen — Consilio Tax & Law
More on this in Dutch media
- AD — „booking.com thuiswerken”
- de Volkskrant — „booking.com thuiswerken”
- RTL Nieuws — „booking.com thuiswerken”