Search

Newsletter

Compensation by Employer of Costs Incurred by Works Council

A discussion of the judgment of the Court of The Hague, 27 January 2010, JAR 2010/86

Compensation of Costs of the Works Council

In order to ensure that the Works Council (or Committee) can indeed make use of all rights and powers conferred on it in the Dutch Work Councils Act (Wet op de ondernemingsraden, "WOR"), Section 22 of the WOR has a provision for the costs incurred by the Works Council. Under this Section all costs the Works Council makes that are reasonably necessary for the fulfillment of the Works Council's task must be borne by the employer. For example, such costs can be travel costs, costs of secretariat and meeting costs. But the costs for consulting a third party, including an expert or an attorney, are also covered by this provision. However, it is obliged to inform the employer of the amount of the costs to be made in advance.

Background of this Case

The proceedings before the Court of The Hague were brought by a law firm that had carried out work for two Works Councils. The employer had only paid part of the attorney's fees, and the law firm claimed payment of the outstanding amount in these proceedings.

With reference to Section 22 of the WOR, the employer disputed that he owed any more money to the law firm. He argued that the amount charged by the law firm was excessive, so that the costs could not be regarded as reasonably necessary for the fulfillment of the Works Council's task. In addition, the law firm had not given any (proper) quote of the estimated costs in advance, although the employer had repeatedly requested one.

Opinion of the Court

The Court supported the opinion of the employer that the law firm had breached Section 22 of the WOR by failing to provide a (proper) estimate of the expected costs in advance at the employer's request. According to the Court, the purport of Section 22 is precisely that the employer must be able to estimate in advance both the necessity of incurring the costs and the reasonableness of the amount thereof. The idea behind this is that the employer who thinks that the estimated costs cannot be regarded as reasonably necessary may still apply to the joint sectoral committee for intermediary services and advice and possibly afterwards to the Subdistrict Court even before the costs have actually been made. In fact, the director of the enterprise has a limited right of approval in advance and an expert or attorney engaged by the Works Council cannot rely on it that he/she has been given a 'blank check'.

The Court considered, however, that the above did not mean that all the bills sent by the law firm could remain unpaid. The purport of Section 22 of the WOR is not that the costs of engaging an expert - as far as these costs are reasonable - cannot be charged to the employer at all; in the opinion of the Court the employer should compensate those costs that were reasonably necessary given the circumstances and with hindsight, and the amount of which can also be considered reasonable. Therefore, the employer should still pay a - strongly moderated - amount to the law firm.

Tips:
  • The employer is obliged to pay those costs that the Works Council or Committee must reasonably incur in order to fulfill its task.
  • The employer may request an estimate of the cost before the costs are made. The employer may make use of the disputes committee provided for in Section 36 of the WOR if he is of the view that the costs to be made are not reasonably necessary for the fulfillment of the tasks of the Works Council or Committee, or if he considers these costs to be excessive.
  • It follows from this ruling that the Works Council (or a third party engaged by it) cannot trust that a 'blank check' was issued if no explicit agreements have been made in advance about the costs to be incurred.
  • At the same time, the absence of explicit agreements does not alter the fact that the employer does have to pay those costs that were reasonably necessary given the circumstances, and with hindsight. In practice this means that the Court may moderate the amount that was charged.
Share this:   
linkedin facebook twitter email
Klaartje Stalenhoef

Tel: +31 20 5506 847
E-mail: klaartje.stalenhoef@kvdl.nl

View our profile

linkedin