Public anonymized versionPage last modified: 4 October 2026Sources last verified: 11 July 2026
Two worker cases
Information in this report as of 3 October 2026
This summary uses published descriptions. Its preparation date does not represent a fresh review of private records. The general source-verification date remains 11 July 2026; later information carries its own dates and attribution.
Worker 1
A dispute over the obligation to calculate gross wages from 6 May 2022, guaranteed hours, and reconciliation of payments and deductions.
Status described in the report: The report provides no independently confirmed final balance. The disciplinary decision of 29 June 2026 was published on 31 July 2026. According to the authors, an appeal was lodged; its outcome and finality remain unconfirmed.
Key evidence: E-001: process-verbaal; E-002: EUR 5,000 transfer; E-003–E-006: contract, payroll and bank records; E-008–E-012: calculations and correspondence; E-014: disciplinary decision.
Chronology: 12 March 2024: process-verbaal → 18 March 2024: advance → April–May 2026: successive calculations → 29 June 2026: disciplinary decision.
Questions to resolve: Was the complete gross-wage calculation from 6 May 2022 provided? How were payments and deductions allocated, and how was the advance accounted for separately?
A separate dispute over scheduling under a 32-hour guarantee, negative balances and deductions, 61.11 hours of leave, and the final settlement.
Status described in the report: The public timeline describes SNCU closing the report on 20 January 2026 and Juridisch Loket recommending a lawyer on 14 February 2026. These events do not settle the pay dispute; no later final outcome has been confirmed here.
Key evidence: E-018: payslips; E-019: employee-system views; E-020–E-021: reports and legal assistance; E-022–E-023: accommodation and letters; E-024: issue map.
Chronology: 24 June 2024: scheduling message → 25–29 July 2025: disputed leave approvals → 14 August 2025: payment demand → 20 January and 14 February 2026: institutional responses.
Questions to resolve: How were guaranteed hours, corrections, leave and the final balance calculated? What justified the deductions and SNCU closing the report?
Two employment cases — application of EU law in practice
Using two cases connected with Intrixo, the report shows how national and European Union rules and worker-protection mechanisms are applied in practice in the Netherlands. Each case has its own documents, chronology and questions requiring clarification.
Shared issue in both cases: 32 contractual hours versus “1:00” on payslips
The same type of discrepancy appears in both separate case files: the Fase 4 agreement records 32 hours per week, while some payslips contain “Contracturen: 1:00 uur per week”. The “1:00” field does not by itself prove that only one hour was paid, but it requires a source-level explanation of the recorded working-time basis, guaranteed hours, corrections, wages and deductions.
For Worker 2, a working review of 97 available payslip files found “1:00” in 89 files and “32:00” in 8. These are file counts, not separate weeks, because some files are different versions of the same accounting period.
EU-law context — Your Europe Advice no. 471776 of 4 June 2026: The advice was independent and non-binding. Based on the account of the case supplied, the reply assessed the agency’s practices, including covering its own obligations from amounts owed to workers, as incompatible with the principle of equal treatment of temporary agency workers under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC. It also called for detailed analysis of the accounting of hours, wages and deductions. The discrepancy between 32 contractual hours and the field “Contracturen: 1:00 uur per week” raised a question about whether the worker had received clear and consistent information on employment conditions under Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/1152. It further stated that less transparent practices affecting migrant workers, or practices hindering the recovery of wages due, could constitute a breach of Article 45 TFEU.
Significance of the advice: The reply explicitly assessed the described practices as incompatible with equal treatment and conditionally identified a possible breach of Article 45 TFEU. This assessment is based on the account supplied and is not a binding determination by a court or supervisory authority. The reply was checked on 4 October 2026; this does not represent a fresh review of the entire case file.
Fewer places at the client and a proposed move elsewhere.
“Minus” and corrections
Negative balance and an announced correction for week 29.
Resignation
Request for final settlement, leave and post-employment records.
Leave dispute
Written information on 61.11 hours, followed by conflicting positions on leave.
Payment demand
Request for final settlement after employment ended.
Support route
FairWork, Juridisch Loket and SNCU; SNCU closed the report on 20 January 2026.
Juridisch Loket
Unable to obtain SNCU’s reason for closure, it advised contacting a lawyer and offered a possible referral.
Issues to verify — Worker 2
Guaranteed hours, the negative balance and deductions, disputed leave and the final settlement require comparison with the full records. See the separate evidence index.
Changing calculation results — Worker 1
Successive working results, not a final amount established by a binding decision.
calculationapprox. EUR 3,503.05
First version with an incomplete document set.
calculationapprox. EUR 4,155.85
Second version; documentation still incomplete.
to verifyEUR 7,741.03
Later version; not a complete final balance.
Question concerning Worker 1
Can the complete document set demonstrate that gross wages due from 6 May 2022, deductions, bank payments and the final balance were correctly calculated? The report presents material for independent verification and does not replace a decision by a competent authority.