Justified rejection of request for nine-hour working days

On 17 March 2026, the subdistrict court of the District Court of Overijssel (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:1499) ruled that an employer could not be obliged to agree to an employee’s request to convert his 40-hour working week to a 36-hour working week comprising four nine-hour working days. The employee invoked the Flexible Working Act (“Wfw”), but the balancing of interests that the judge had to carry out fell in favour of the employer.

Background to the case

The employee had been employed for 40 hours per week since 2006 and requested his employer to reduce his working hours to 36 hours per week, spread over four nine-hour working days, with a fixed day off. The employer agreed to the reduction in hours and the day off, but rejected the request for nine-hour working days. Instead, the employer offered two alternatives: a working week alternating between four and five eight-hour days, or a fixed four-day working week of eight hours per day (32 hours per week). According to the employee, his interest in a fixed day off without excessive loss of income outweighed the employer’s interest in working days of no more than eight hours.

Application of the Flexible Working Act

The subdistrict court ruled that the employee’s request must be regarded as a request within the meaning of the Flexible Working Act. It is important to note that a request to adjust working hours must in principle be granted, unless there are compelling business interests. However, a different test applies to the distribution of hours: the employer may deviate from the employee’s wishes if, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, the employer’s interests outweigh those of the employee.

The employer’s defence that no valid request had been made was rejected. Also the employee’s argument that the request had been automatically granted due to a late response was not upheld. The employer had responded in a timely and substantive manner.

Balancing of interests

The crux of the dispute lay in the balancing of interests. The employee argued that he needed a fixed day off to maintain his work-life balance and mental well-being. Four eight-hour days (32 hours) would not be financially feasible for him. The employer countered that working days of more than eight hours were undesirable due to scheduling and organisational problems if several employees made similar requests, the risk of understaffing, and possible negative effects on productivity and employee capacity. The employer also wished to avoid setting a precedent and referred to the existing policy in which an eight-hour working day is the norm.

Subdistrict Court ruling

The subdistrict court ruled in favour of the employer. The decisive factor was that the employer had offered alternatives and that the employee had not cited any compelling personal circumstances. In the subdistrict court’s view, the general interest in a better work-life balance was insufficient for this purpose. The employer was therefore entitled to refuse the request for nine-hour working days.

Implications for practice

This ruling demonstrates that a request to adjust the distribution of working hours under the Working Hours Act is not automatically granted. In this case, the subdistrict court attached importance to the fact that the employer had substantiated its interest in maintaining working days of a maximum of eight hours in concrete terms, including by invoking policy, organisational consequences and the need to avoid setting a precedent. Another factor was that the employer had offered alternatives. For employees, a general appeal to work-life balance is not always sufficient to enforce a different distribution of hours.