Employers sometimes allow applicants to “trial work” for one or more days before offering them an employment contract. This is often done with the idea that both parties can assess whether there is a good match. From a legal perspective, however, such a trial period may have consequences for the application of the statutory chain rule governing fixed-term employment contracts. In a judgment of 13 January 2026, the subdistrict court of the District Court of North Holland held that two paid trial days must be regarded as an employment contract. These days therefore count towards the statutory chain of fixed-term employment contracts. The judgment demonstrates that what may appear to be an innocent trial period may have significant consequences under employment law.

Facts

The employee concerned had applied for a position within the employer’s organisation. Before entering into an employment contract, the parties agreed that she would first work for two days on a trial basis in order to determine whether the work and the cooperation would be satisfactory. During these days the employee performed actual work within the company. She participated in the regular work process and carried out tasks that were also performed by other employees.

She received payment for these trial days. According to the employee, this payment constituted wages for the work she had performed. The employer considered the days to be merely an introductory period, but did not dispute that payment had been made for these days.

After these two trial days, the parties entered into a fixed-term employment contract. This contract was subsequently extended twice for a period of six months. At the end of the second extension, the employer informed the employee that the employment contract would come to an end and gave notice of the termination of the employment relationship.

The employee took the position that the employment contract had already become an employment contract for an indefinite period at that point in time. According to her, the two trial days should be regarded as the first employment contract in the chain. This would mean that the subsequent contracts constituted the second and third agreements, and that the second extension had automatically resulted in an employment contract for an indefinite period.

The employee’s claim

The employee brought proceedings before the subdistrict court and claimed, among other things, continued payment of wages. She argued that the employment contract had not validly ended because, pursuant to the statutory chain rule, the employment relationship had already become one for an indefinite period.

According to the employee, the employer therefore had no authority to terminate the employment relationship merely by giving notice of the expiry of the contract. Since the employer nevertheless stopped paying wages, the employee argued that the employer had breached the obligations arising from the employment contract.

Because wages were no longer paid, the employee stated that she felt compelled to resign with immediate effect. She argued that the failure to pay wages constituted a serious breach by the employer. On that basis she claimed, in addition to continued payment of wages, an equitable compensation on the grounds of seriously culpable conduct by the employer.

Legal framework

The statutory chain rule laid down in Article 7:668a of the Dutch Civil Code provides that a fixed-term employment contract automatically converts into an employment contract for an indefinite period if more than three successive fixed-term employment contracts are concluded, or if the total duration of the chain exceeds 36 months.

In determining whether an agreement qualifies as an employment contract, the decisive elements are the performance of work, the payment of wages and the existence of a relationship of authority, as referred to in Article 7:610 of the Dutch Civil Code.

Judgment of the Subdistrict Court

The subdistrict court held that the two trial days must indeed be regarded as an employment contract. During these days the employee performed actual work, received payment for it and it was plausible that she carried out these activities under the employer’s instructions. The essential elements of an employment contract were therefore present.

Because these trial days must be regarded as the first employment contract in the chain, they count towards the statutory chain rule. The subsequent fixed-term employment contract constituted the second agreement and the first extension the third. The following extension must therefore be regarded as an employment contract for an indefinite period.

The employment relationship could therefore not validly end merely through the employer’s notification of the contract’s expiry, according to the subdistrict court.

Summary dismissal and equitable compensation

The employee also argued that the failure to pay wages left her no other option than to resign with immediate effect. In her view, this constituted seriously culpable conduct by the employer entitling her to equitable compensation.

The subdistrict court did not follow the employee in this argument. Although the failure to pay wages in time may be blameworthy, the court held that in this case it did not amount to seriously culpable conduct by the employer. In reaching this conclusion, the court took into account that the employer maintained the position that the employment contract had validly ended and that there was therefore no longer an obligation to pay wages.

The employee was therefore not entitled to equitable compensation.

Read the judgment here .

Conclusion

This judgment shows that paid trial working may, in certain circumstances, qualify as an employment contract. When an employee performs actual work during a trial period and receives payment for it, that period may count towards the statutory chain of fixed-term employment contracts. This may result in a subsequent extension of a fixed-term contract unintentionally converting into an employment contract for an indefinite period. Employers should therefore exercise caution when allowing applicants to trial work and should seek legal advice on how such arrangements can best be documented in writing in order to minimise legal risks. Employees would likewise be well advised to obtain proper information regarding the legal qualification of trial working arrangements in order to avoid misunderstandings. The experienced employment lawyers of SPEE advocaten & mediation are happy to assist both employers and employees with advice and representation.