Ndị a na-eme oriri n'ọfịs: onye were gị n'ọrụ ọ̀ ga-achọ ka ị gaa?

A Dutch employer cannot make a purely social office party compulsory. The employer’s right to give instructions under Article 7:660 of the Dutch Civil Code extends only to instructions concerning the performance of the work and good order within the business, and drinks or a Christmas dinner fall outside that. Where an event does have a genuine business purpose, attendance can be required, but the time spent then counts as working time and must be treated and paid as such.

What the right of instruction actually covers

The employment relationship rests on the employer’s authority, but that authority has a defined scope. Article 7:660 of the Dutch Civil Code allows the employer to give instructions on the performance of the work and on good order within the undertaking, provided the instruction does not conflict with the contract, a collective agreement or statute. Mandatory meetings, safety rules, working methods, shift allocation and reporting lines all sit comfortably inside that scope.

A festive gathering outside working hours does not. Socialising with colleagues is not a contractual duty, and an evening of drinks does not maintain order within the business in any meaningful sense. Because the connection with the work is missing, the general right of instruction gives no basis for demanding attendance. The employer may invite, encourage and even express disappointment, but it cannot convert an invitation into an obligation by calling it one.

The second limit is reasonableness. Even a valid instruction must be one the employee can reasonably be expected to follow, and the duty to act as a good employer (aga arụ ọrụ, Article 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code) requires the employer to weigh the employee’s circumstances before insisting. An instruction that ignores a known personal impediment is not saved by the fact that the underlying event was work-related.

When an event does become work

The picture changes as soon as the gathering serves an identifiable business purpose. A training day, a formal onboarding programme, a strategy session, a client event at which the employee represents the company, or a supplier fair are all part of the job, and attendance can be required in the ordinary way. Many events are mixed: an afternoon of workshops that runs into a dinner, or a two-day offsite in which presentations alternate with social activities.

For mixed events the useful questions are what the programme actually contains, whether the employer can explain the business objective without resorting to the phrase team building, whether external parties are present, and whether the employee has a role beyond attendance. The more the event resembles work, the stronger the employer’s position. A Friday evening at the pub labelled as team building but consisting of nothing but drinks will not survive that test, and an employer that mandates it is enforcing an instruction it does not have.

Compulsory attendance turns free time into working time

An employer cannot have it both ways. Under the Working Time Directive and the Dutch Working Hours Act (Arbeidstijdenwet), working time is time during which the employee is at the employer’s disposal and performing duties. The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently held that periods in which an employee is required to remain at the employer’s disposal, and whose constraints objectively and very significantly limit the freedom to use that time as the employee wishes, count as working time. An evening the employee is obliged to spend at a venue chosen by the employer, on pain of consequences, falls squarely within that reasoning.

The practical consequences follow automatically. The hours count towards the maximum working times and must be reconciled with the statutory daily and weekly rest periods, so an employer that keeps staff at an event until midnight cannot expect them at their desks at eight the next morning. Whether the hours are additionally paid, and at what rate, depends on the employment contract and any applicable collective labour agreement rather than on statute. The point for both sides is that making an event compulsory brings it into the sphere of paid employment, with everything that entails.

What an employer may do if you stay away

The threshold for sanctioning an employee who missed an event is high. A written warning is the most an employer can realistically defend, and only where it can show that the event was genuinely work-related, that attendance was communicated as mandatory in advance, and that the employee gave no acceptable reason for staying away. The warning is placed on the personnel file, and an employee who disputes it should respond in writing and ask for the response to be filed alongside it.

Financial sanctions are far more restricted than employers often assume. A fine may be imposed only if a penalty clause is laid down in writing, states the destination of the amount, and meets the further conditions of Articles 7:650 and 7:651 of the Dutch Civil Code; the employer may not simply keep the money itself, and it cannot claim both a fine and damages for the same conduct. Deducting or setting off amounts against wages is separately restricted by Articles 7:631 and 7:632 of the Dutch Civil Code. Withholding a day’s pay because someone skipped a dinner has no basis at all: the employee was available for the contracted work, and no work was withheld.

Suspension and dismissal are another order of magnitude. Ending an employment contract for culpable conduct requires conduct so serious that continuing the relationship cannot reasonably be expected, assessed against the employee’s record and the employer’s own conduct. Missing a single social gathering does not come close, and a suspension imposed as punishment while wages continue to run is itself likely to breach the good employer standard.

The grounds an employee can rely on

The first and strongest defence is that there was no valid instruction. If the event was social, Article 7:660 of the Dutch Civil Code gave the employer nothing to enforce, and any sanction built on it lacks a foundation. The second is proportionality: even where an instruction was valid, the response must match the seriousness of the omission, and a single absence rarely justifies more than a conversation.

Personal circumstances form a third line. Illness, caring responsibilities, a religious objection to an event built around alcohol, or a disability that makes the venue unsuitable must be weighed individually. Compulsory evening events can also raise an equal treatment issue: a requirement that is neutral on its face may disadvantage employees with care duties or employees of a particular faith, and unless the employer can show a legitimate aim pursued by appropriate and necessary means, that amounts to indirect discrimination under Dutch equal treatment legislation.

How the employee behaves matters as much as the legal position. An employer that set out the work-related purpose in writing well in advance and heard nothing until the employee failed to appear is in a much better position than one that sent a cheerful invitation to a year-end party. Raising the objection beforehand, in writing, preserves the argument; a silent absence weakens it.

The employer’s duty of care at company events

There is a second reason for employers to think carefully before making an event compulsory: responsibility follows control. The strict workplace liability rule of Article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code applies where the employer directs the activity, and where it does not reach, the Supreme Court has accepted that the good employment practice standard can still make an employer liable for injury sustained during an activity it organised and encouraged. Insufficient supervision of alcohol, an unsafe activity or an unsuitable venue therefore carries a real cost.

The same applies to conduct. Employers must pursue a policy against psychosocial workload, including harassment and unwanted behaviour, under the Working Conditions Act (Ịrụ ọrụ n'ụlọ). Incidents at company parties are among the most common sources of complaints, and an employer that has declared the event part of the job cannot treat what happens there as a private matter. Setting out expectations, limiting the free bar and arranging transport home are not merely hospitality; they are risk management.

How to handle it in practice

For employers the rule is simple: decide in advance whether the event is part of the job. If it is, say so in writing, explain the business purpose, state that the hours count as working time, and set out what happens if someone does not attend. If it is not, treat non-attendance as the employee’s own choice and leave it there. Recording attendance at a voluntary party, or letting it colour a performance review, invites exactly the dispute the employer was trying to avoid.

For employees the rule is equally simple: do not stage a silent boycott. Raise the objection with your manager before the date, explain the reason, put it in an email and keep the reply. If a warning or a wage deduction follows, object in writing without delay and ask for the legal basis. Both steps cost nothing and both are decisive if the matter later reaches the subdistrict court.

Advice on instructions, sanctions and working time

Disputes about compulsory events are rarely about the party itself. They surface where an employer has stretched its right of instruction, or where a warning has been placed on file that will be relied on in a later dismissal. Both are worth addressing at the moment they arise rather than months afterwards.

Law & More advises employers on structuring events, attendance policies and disciplinary measures that hold up, and assists employees faced with a warning, a wage deduction or a suspension after refusing to attend. You will find further background in our overview of iwu ọrụ, n'ime anyị ntuziaka iwu ọrụ and on our page for a ọkaiwu ịchụpụ na Netherlands.

Ọtụtụ mgbe Ẹbụp Ajụjụ