Key findings
Each point below identifies a concrete finding or a clearly separated issue requiring review. Source links open the relevant section of the public evidence page, not repository code.
Page last modified: 2026-10-04
Sources last verified: 2026-07-11
Public version: briefing / anonymized
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?
Worker 2
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?
Shared issue in both cases: 32 contractual hours versus “1:00” on payslips
documented discrepancyYour Europe Advice: 4 June 2026
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 payment for only one hour, but it requires an explanation of the recorded working-time basis, guaranteed hours, corrections, wages and deductions.
For Worker 2, a working review of 97 available files found “1:00” in 89 files and “32:00” in 8; these are file counts, not separate weeks.
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.
Worker 1 — E-004 · Worker 2 — E-018
Worker 1
Two different scopes that must not be merged
Obligation recorded in the proces-verbaal
Within two weeks Intrixo had to provide the worker's representative with a calculation of gross wages due since 6 May 2022.
Data needed to verify the final balance
Independently testing a no-further-claim conclusion additionally requires a gross-to-net reconciliation, deductions, bank payments, separate treatment of the EUR 5,000 advance and the final balance.
Important: the proces-verbaal does not expressly state that all of those additional elements had to appear in one document.
1. The proces-verbaal imposed a specific wage-calculation obligation on Intrixo
The proces-verbaal states that Intrixo had to provide the worker's representative, within two weeks, with a calculation of gross wages due since 6 May 2022.
E-001 · court record · public excerpt · report § 2
2. The two-week period ended on 26 March 2024, but the public material contains no proof of full performance by that date
The date follows from the two-week period beginning on 12 March 2024. The absence of public proof does not by itself establish final non-performance; the complete file and correspondence must be compared.
E-001 · court record · public deadline excerpt; performance to be checked · report § 2
3. The NBBU Fase 4 agreement provided for 32 working hours per week
The agreement falls under NBBU Fase 4, equivalent to ABU Phase C. The public excerpt records an indefinite-term agreement, 32 hours per week and no on-call contract.
E-003 · employment agreement · public field excerpt · report § 5
4. Some payslips state “Contracturen: 1:00 uur per week”
The one-hour field is inconsistent with the agreement field recording 32 hours and requires an explanation of payroll-data history and corrections.
E-004 · payslip · public field excerpt · report § 5
5. The document package contains missing or later-received payroll weeks
The working register identifies specific weeks requiring completion, allocation or confirmation. “Missing” means absent from the analyzed package.
E-005 · payslip register · public descriptive table · report § 11
6. The Raad van Discipline upheld the objection and complaint parts a) and d)
According to the officially published anonymized decision, the earlier chair's decision was set aside, parts a) and d) were upheld, parts b) and c) were dismissed, and a reprimand was imposed. That publication does not by itself establish the outcome of any later appeal or finality.
E-014 · disciplinary decision · official Tuchtrecht publication · evidence card · report § 1C
Appeal information — 3 October 2026: According to the authors, the first representative lodged an appeal with the Hof van Discipline. The current outcome of the appeal has not been independently confirmed. Publication of the decision does not itself establish that it is final.
document32 hoursThe Fase 4 agreement guaranteed 32 hours per week; scheduling and pay records need comparison.
party position24 Jun 2024A message described fewer workers needed at the client and a proposed transfer to another workplace.
party position“minus”The helpdesk attributed a negative balance to accommodation and insurance costs when few hours were worked.
to verify61.11 hLeave hours were confirmed in writing on 25 July 2025; their use later became disputed.
document20 Jan 2026SNCU closed the report after employer contact; the public material does not contain a full explanation of the grounds.
document14 Feb 2026Juridisch Loket could not obtain SNCU’s reason for closing the report and advised contacting a lawyer; a referral was also possible. Timeline summary.