Booking.com Court Ruling on Office Attendance, October 28, 2026: Notes for HR

The Amsterdam court’s October 28 decision gives Booking.com the green light to convert a voluntary two-day office expectation into a mandatory standard, underscoring that managerial discretion can prevail when a works council’s refusal is judged unreasonable. The company had argued that in-person contact supports team cohesion, training and collaboration, and that the voluntary approach had not produced the desired attendance. The court agreed, while requiring Booking.com to continue ensuring sufficient workstations and honoring a hardship clause. For HR leaders, the case is a practical illustration of how hybrid-policy disputes are resolved when employee representative bodies have formal veto rights.

What did the Amsterdam court decide?

The court held that Booking.com’s works council could not reasonably have withheld consent to the proposed policy change. It found that the company has a reasonable interest in requiring employees to spend at least 40% of their working time in the office, because in-person contact can promote mutual connection, training, development and effective collaboration. The voluntary arrangement had produced only 27% compliance with the 40% threshold. An earlier internal proposal had contemplated 50–60% attendance; the company settled on 40% together with a six-month transition and a hardship clause for employees facing genuine difficulties. The court also directed Booking.com to ensure sufficient workstations so that every employee who comes to the office has a place to sit.

How does the Dutch works-council process work in this context?

Under the Dutch Works Councils Act, certain policy changes require the consent of the works council. If the council withholds consent, the employer may ask a court for substitute permission when the refusal is judged unreasonable. Booking.com sued after the council refused. The court weighed the company’s managerial discretion and its right to give reasonable workplace instructions against the council’s objections concerning travel time, costs and workstation availability. The decision is specific to Dutch law and does not automatically translate to other jurisdictions, but it illustrates the evidentiary standard courts apply when employers seek to override formal employee-representative objections.

Why did the voluntary policy fail and why does that matter?

Booking.com had recommended, rather than required, 40% office attendance for some time. Only 27% of employees met that threshold. The court treated the failure of the voluntary approach as relevant to whether mandatory attendance was a reasonable means to achieve the stated goals of cohesion and collaboration. HR teams considering a move from recommendation to requirement should therefore track actual attendance data, document the gap between policy and practice, and be prepared to explain why softer measures proved insufficient.

What should HR teams do this week?

Review current hybrid or return-to-office policies for clarity of business rationale, consultation records, and exception processes. If the organization operates in a jurisdiction with works councils, unions or co-determination rights, confirm that any planned tightening of attendance rules has followed the required process. Identify employees who may need hardship or medical accommodations and ensure the pathway is written and communicated. For multinational teams, note that the Booking.com ruling is Dutch-law specific; parallel changes in other countries may require different procedures.

What should operators watch next?

The works council has indicated it is reviewing the full judgment and considering an appeal. Implementation timing will depend on the six-month transition and any further litigation. Broader market moves toward stricter office attendance continue in multiple countries; HR leaders should monitor both legal outcomes and employee-retention data after enforcement begins. Related coverage on Kurums includes the recent note on the FLRA’s decision involving HHS telework and a presidential return-to-office directive.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the ruling require five days in the office?
No. It permits a requirement of at least 40% of working time—approximately two days in a five-day week.

What percentage of staff currently meet the 40% threshold?
27% under the existing voluntary arrangement.

Is there a transition period?
Yes. The policy includes a six-month transition period.

Can employees with special circumstances be exempted?
The ruling contemplates a hardship clause for employees who face genuine difficulties.

Does this ruling apply outside the Netherlands?
No. It is a decision under Dutch works-council law. Other countries have different consultation and consent rules.

Last Updated: October 29, 2026.

Related: FLRA Upholds HHS Telework Arbitration Award · HR Department Hub