Banks in the Netherlands are allowed to exempt certain groups of employees from a reduction in working hours, according to a court ruling issued in August 1997. However, creating a separate legal entity specifically for the purpose of offering those employees less favourable terms of employment is not allowed.
Download article in original language : NL9708127NNL.DOC
Banks in the Netherlands are allowed to exempt certain groups of employees from a reduction in working hours, according to a court ruling issued in August 1997. However, creating a separate legal entity specifically for the purpose of offering those employees less favourable terms of employment is not allowed.
On 6 August 1997, the Arbitration Board for the Banking Sector (Scheidsgerecht voor het bankbedrijf) ruled that Generale Bank Nederland may repeal its established 36-hour week for certain groups of employees. The case was initiated by the unions when, in December 1996, the bank announced the introduction of a 40-hour week for its commercial employees. The unions argued that the collective agreement for the banking sector stipulated that banks should introduce a 36-hour week for as many employees as possible. However, the Arbitration Board maintained that the agreement does not prohibit the repeal of the 36-hour week. Earlier in February, the Board gave a similar ruling regarding a dispute at the largest bank in the Netherlands, ABN-AMRO. The unions stated that the agreement lays down a 36-hour week for all employees as a point of departure, but the Board agreed with the bank that the agreement provided enough latitude to exempt certain categories of employees.
In addition to the disputes about the working week, the Board had also to decide on a dispute concerning the scope of the collective agreement for the banking sector. ABN-Amro wished to set up a call centre to allow customers to conduct their business over the telephone. This call centre was to be a separate legal entity, and therefore not bound by the collective agreement for the banking sector. The result would be that call centre employees would be approximately 20% worse off than their colleagues who were covered by the collective agreement. The Board ruled against ABN-Amro, stating that the application of less favourable terms of employment could result in undermining the collective agreement for the banking sector. Moreover, the activities of the call centre are part of the core banking activities. The labour unions were successful in their demand for ABN-Amro to apply the terms of the collective agreement for the banking sector to call centre employees as well. The Board also noted, however, that the collective agreement contains an escape route for ABN Amro: a dispensation clause.
In December 1996, the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court sided with the ABN-Amro works council in its opposition to the establishment of a call centre. ABN-Amro has since filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against this ruling.
References
Gerechtshof Amsterdam, ondernemingskamer, 5 December 1996, JAR 1997, no. 12.
Scheidsgerecht voor het Bankbedrijf 26 February 1997, JAR 1997, no. 103.
Scheidsgerecht voor het Bankbedrijf 6 August, 1997, forthcoming.
Eurofound recommends citing this publication in the following way.
Eurofound (1997), Working time disputes in Dutch banking, article.
