[English version] # PUBLIC EVIDENCE REPORT (FULLY ANONYMIZED VERSION) **Case:** Temporary work agency in the Netherlands (Intrixo B.V., previously operating under the name Voorneputten) **Scope:** alleged labour-law violations + alleged privacy violations in agency accommodation + problems with legal services **Authors:** Worker A + Worker B (all personal data removed) **Source:** edited and structured version of the “Complete Report 2026” prepared for publication (GitHub). --- ## 0) Important reservations (fair and firm) This document describes facts and conclusions **based on evidence in our possession** (documents, correspondence, audio and video recordings). Terms such as “fraud”, “manipulation”, or “misleading” are used as **suspicions and the authors’ assessment based on presented facts**, and **not** as a final criminal-law judgment or a binding court finding. This version is anonymized: names of private individuals, room number, name and address of the accommodation, and other identifying data were removed. The publication serves an informational and public-interest purpose and is not legal advice. --- ## 1) Case summary (core) The case concerns **allegations** of serious issues regarding employment and settlements, including: - Worker B being left without means of subsistence for nearly half a year (according to our documentation), - a “housing debt” being accrued weekly and reaching approx. EUR 1,000 (according to settlements/documents), - possible non-compliance with a Phase C (indefinite) contract with a 32-hour weekly guarantee, - systemic payroll and settlement irregularities affecting Worker A (based on document analysis), - pressure and attempts to force a signature during meetings with the agency (evidence: audio recordings), - repeated entries by third parties into an occupied, locked room in agency accommodation (evidence: video recordings). Additionally, the report describes problems with legal services: missing handover of key documents, long periods of silence, contradictory messages, and invoices without a clear breakdown of performed work (based on correspondence and billing documents). --- ## 2) Evidence (what exists and what supports it) The authors indicate they possess, among other things: - a court document (“proces-verbaal”) from the hearing dated 12 March 2024, - audio recordings from meetings/conversations with the agency (pressure/attempts to force actions, according to the recordings), - video recordings of third-party entries into the room in the accommodation (date/time visible on the footage), - correspondence and contact traces (or lack thereof) with lawyers and institutions (including the Dutch Bar Association/Orde van Advocaten, the dean, the Disciplinary Board/Raad van Discipline, Juridisch Loket), - payroll/settlement documentation (described in the source report as numerous and systemic irregularities). **Technical note:** attachments in the GitHub repository should be published safely (redaction of sensitive data, no publication of bystanders’ faces, etc.). Full documents should be provided to institutions/legal representatives upon request. --- ## 3) Timeline (specific dates from the report) ### 3.1. Legal help and the court hearing - Before New Year 2024: the authors seek accounting support; an accountant recommends Lawyer 1 (later: complaint to the Dutch Bar Association/Orde van Advocaten). - 12 March 2024: court hearing takes place. - According to the account: both sides had errors in calculations; the court was to allow time for accurate recalculation. - The agency was to pay EUR 5,000 within a specified period (described as received “within 2 weeks”). ### 3.2. After the hearing and why the matter was not closed - April 2024: meeting with Lawyer 1 – further steps were to follow once the agency sent full calculations; afterwards no visible progress. - 24 May 2024: accountant informs that there is an outcome/decision and that Worker B should discuss it with Lawyer 1; based on email correspondence, contact with Lawyer 1 remained practically ineffective. - June 2024: the authors hire Lawyer 2 (second office). They are told the case may take ~3–4 months and that contact will follow. ### 3.3. Lack of action / contradictory information - After ~4 months: no updates; Lawyer 2 claims by phone they cannot obtain documents from Lawyer 1. - 16 September 2024: authors ask the accountant to intervene regarding documentation; Lawyer 1 sends documents which, according to the authors, were not relevant. - At the same time Lawyer 2 says “we received documents and are analysing them”, followed by silence again. - After ~2 months: authors receive information that “a settlement exists and nothing can be done” (WhatsApp correspondence), and the document allegedly came from Intrixo – but it was not shown to the authors. - Before New Year 2025: after announcing they would report suspected “fraud”, Lawyer 2 calls back; authors ask to obtain the outcome directly from the court – according to the authors, still without results and without reimbursement of paid fees; instead unclear “additional payment” invoices appear (authors describe this as a suspicion of improper billing). --- ## 4) Alleged labour-law violations – Worker B (Phase C, 32 hours) According to the source report and documentation: - Worker B was allegedly left without means of subsistence for nearly half a year. - A “housing debt” was then accrued weekly, reaching approx. EUR 1,000. - The agency allegedly failed to comply with the Phase C (indefinite) contract with a 32-hour weekly guarantee. - Worker B was summoned to the office where, instead of resolving the matter, an additional abuse attempt allegedly occurred (authors state they have evidence). --- ## 5) Alleged labour-law violations – Worker A (systemic picture) The source report describes systemic issues, including: - failure to honour the Phase C minimum hours guarantee, - failure to pay full wages during periods without work, - deductions exceeding permitted limits (leaving the worker below subsistence minimum), - refusal of holiday-related entitlements (in time and/or money), - underpayment of statutory allowances, - late wage payments, - actions described as “manipulating documentation”, which the authors believe were intended to conceal shortcomings (stated as suspicion based on document analysis). --- ## 6) Pressure and coercion attempts – audio recording analysis According to the source report and recordings: - Worker B was summoned twice to confrontational meetings, - during meetings there were attempts to force signing a document about cancelling the “debt”, - the agency side allegedly used undue pressure and possibly veiled threats/intimidation (authors’ assessment based on the recordings), - authors interpret this as an attempt to bypass Phase C guarantees and as an interference with free will and personal security. --- ## 7) Agency accommodation – third-party entry into a locked room (video) According to video evidence, third parties repeatedly: - opened and entered an occupied room in agency accommodation, - even though the room was locked, - without prior notice or consent, - with date and time visible in the footage. The report indicates at least four dates: - 23 Dec 2024 - 08 Jan 2025 - 31 Mar 2025 - 02 Aug 2025 Total: 8 recordings. **Evidence inference in the report:** this material may support requests to the accommodation manager for: entry procedures, a list of persons with master key access, entry logs/registries, and any inspection protocols for the specified dates/times. --- ## 8) Legal services – factual issues (no emotions, only facts) ### 8.1. Lawyer 1 - authors filed a complaint with the Dutch Bar Association/Orde van Advocaten, - one allegation is insufficient information and failure to hand over key documents (neither to the authors nor to Lawyer 2), - according to the authors, Lawyer 1 did not provide proof supporting their claims in response, - the dean allegedly discounted part of the material due to missing translations; authors prepared translations and re-sent, - the matter went to the Disciplinary Board; authors were informed the complaint was rejected due to “lack of translations”, although authors state the translations had been sent; authors filed an appeal/objection. ### 8.2. Lawyer 2 - accepted the case and payment; promised action within ~3–4 months; then long periods of silence, - said they could not obtain documents from Lawyer 1, - later stated “there was a settlement and nothing can be done” without showing the document, - failed to obtain the outcome directly from the court despite requests, - no refund of paid fees (per the authors’ email record) and issuance of unclear invoices. --- ## 9) Legal anchors (to be verified) Below are reference points connected to the described facts (not legal advice; only a mapping): - **Pay despite no work (loon bij geen arbeid):** BW art. 7:628. - **Statutory increase for late wages (up to 50%, subject to court reduction):** BW art. 7:625. - **Pay during annual leave:** BW art. 7:639 et seq. - **Presumption of working hours (≥ 3 months; average of previous 3 months):** BW art. 7:610b. - **Minimum holiday allowance (at least 8%):** WML art. 15. - **Housing deductions when paying minimum wage:** permitted only under conditions (including written authorization/volmacht and other requirements) – rules are described by the Dutch government (Rijksoverheid). - **Data accuracy (if payroll data is corrected/maintained inaccurately):** GDPR art. 5 (accuracy principle). --- ## 10) Conclusion (what this may indicate) The source report indicates the authors have multi-layered evidence that **may indicate**: - serious labour-law issues (Phase C / 32h, deductions, underpayment, leave, timeliness and settlements), - pressure and coercion attempts (audio), - privacy and safety violations in accommodation (video), - serious problems in legal services (missing documents, no contact, contradictory messages, invoices without clear basis). --- ## 11) Evidence index (repository template) Insert real file names in place of “[FILE]”: - D-01 – court “proces-verbaal” from hearing 12-03-2024: [FILE] - D-02 – correspondence with agency on calculations/settlement obligations: [FILE] - D-03 – correspondence with Juridisch Loket: [FILE] - D-04 – complaint to Orde van Advocaten + attachments + translations: [FILE] - D-05 – letter/appeal to the Disciplinary Board (Raad van Discipline): [FILE] - D-06 – audio recordings (2) + transcripts/descriptions: [FILE] - D-07 – video recordings (8) + date/time log: [FILE] - D-08 – payroll documents/analyses (anonymized): [FILE]