On 30 April 2025, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ruled that the Minister of Social Affairs rightly refused to grant DPA dispensation from the universally binding ABU and SFU collective agreements. The ruling (ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:1974) contains six insights that directly affect the remuneration policies of employers and staffing agencies.
Last update: April 9, 2026 · Reading time: 8 minutes
The two most far-reaching rulings go to the core: equal pay is the purpose of universal binding, and a deviating pay system is not a valid counterargument.
Dispensation is rarely granted
Impossibility, not complexity
The lower court ruled that the minister had insufficiently motivated that DPA did not essentially differ from other companies. The Division corrects this. The Assessment Framework contains two separate thresholds.
The minister acknowledges that DPA essentially differs from other companies in the sector. This test is not in dispute. DPA passes the first door.
The real question is whether there are weighty arguments making compliance with the CBA unreasonable. This is the test where DPA fails.
The Division clarifies that the minister is not required to independently investigate possible justifications for a dispensation request.
It is up to the applicant to motivate and substantiate the request. The minister must assess independently, weigh objections from CBA parties, and may ask the applicant for further substantiation. A thinly motivated dispensation request will fail quickly.
The only point where DPA partially prevails. Because DPA had received dispensation for years, the minister should have offered a one-time transition period during which DPA could adapt its pay system.
This ruling impacts the broader pay transparency landscape on multiple fronts.
The Division confirms that equal pay through universal binding is a legitimate and weighty instrument. This strengthens the narrative in which the WGBMV also fits. Employers cannot easily exempt themselves from sector pay frameworks.
CBA obligations are strictly enforced. Combined with PTD reporting that requires structural analyses and makes CBA deviations visible, this creates dual pressure on staffing agencies and their clients.
The case is set in the heart of the staffing industry (ABU/SFU). WAADI art. 12b and WGBMV obligations are inseparable from CBA obligations.
This resonates with the reversal of burden of proof under the WGBMV. In both regimes, employers must demonstrate that their pay policy is sound.
Employers who believe their unique job architecture exempts them from sector norms receive a clear signal. Structured, methodical job evaluation is needed, not custom systems that evade scrutiny.
This article is a legal analysis and not legal advice. Consult a specialist for your specific situation.
Dispensation is an exemption whereby an employer is not bound by a collective agreement that the minister has made mandatory for the entire sector. The minister assesses whether there are essential business differences and whether there are weighty arguments making compliance unreasonable.
That is very difficult. The Council of State ruled in 2025 that a deviating pay system is not in itself a weighty argument. The employer must demonstrate that alignment with the CBA system is factually impossible, not merely complex or costly.
The ruling confirms that equal pay is the leading objective of universal binding in the staffing sector. Staffing agencies deviating from the ABU or SFU collective agreements cannot count on dispensation unless they demonstrate that compliance is impossible. Combined with the upcoming Pay Transparency Directive, this means CBA compliance is becoming increasingly important.
Per obligation: what applies to a regular employer, what changes for staffing agencies, and where reporting and LIV category averages sit under the draft law.
A CBA provides salary scales, but doesn't cover the pay transparency directive. Read which obligations remain with the employer and how to bridge the gap.
The reporting obligation starts at 100 employees. Pay information requests, gender-neutral job evaluation and burden of proof apply to every employer.
Want to know how CBA obligations and the pay transparency directive intersect in your organisation?