Employer found liable despite properly equipped workplace
An ergonomically designed workplace, regular medical inventories, an office gym, chair massage and a “Great Place to Work” certificate. On paper, this employer seemed to have everything nicely in order. After all, the certificate underscores a focus on being a good employer and a healthyworkingenvironment. Yet the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the employer was liable for the occurrence of RSI complaints in one of its employees.
Duty of care goes further
Can an employer be liable for RSI complaints (pain in hands, wrists, arms and shoulders, among others, due to repetitive, prolonged or unnatural movements) in a high-risk employee, even if the workplace meets ARBO standards? Yes. Compliance with those standards is not enough. The employer must ensure compliance with instructions and the proper design of the workplace, tailored to the employee. A concrete example of this can be seen in the case study below.
From workplace to courtroom
The employee in question had been employed since 1 July 2009 and most recently worked as a senior reporting & control specialist. He claimed that he had developed RSI complaints during his work. According to experts, the complaints were caused by prolonged screen work exceeding standards, high work pressure, inadequate rest, and poor posture, especially in the neck and shoulders.
In the first instance (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:2666, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:4197 and ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2023:1043), the subdistrict court ruled that the employee had made it sufficiently plausible that he had suffered (health) damage as a result of RSI complaints, and that these complaints had arisen during the performance of his work. The subdistrict court also ruled that the employer had not fulfilled its duty of care to prevent the health damage.
The employer appealed this ruling(ECLI:NL:GHARL:2025:281).
According to the employer, everything was in order
The employer argued that the employee had a lot of freedom in his work, the atmosphere was good, there was no structural overwork, he took daily breaks, hardly worked overtime and took regular holidays. According to the employer, this evidence showed that the complaints were not work-related.
In addition, the employer argued that they had fulfilled its obligations under Section 7:658 of the Civil Code. Under this article, an employer is obliged to ensure a safe working environment, including an ergonomically designed workplace. The employer must take the necessary measures, issue instructions and monitor compliance. According to the employer, this duty of care was met: the workstations were periodically medically assessed for ergonomic quality. Before reporting sick, the employee knew the ideal settings and could have supervised the correct application himself.
In addition, the employer highlighted its participation in the “Best Workplaces in the Netherlands” programme and its certification as a “Great Place to Work”. Employees could use a gym, table football and chair massage.
Duty of care requires customisation
The court disagreed with the employer. According to the court, the employer’s arguments do not change the expert’s conclusion that the RSI complaints arose during work. The RSI complaints were the result of exposure to screen work exceeding the applicable standards in the Working Conditions Decree , a high perceived work pressure, insufficient rest periods and a neck and shoulder region that was insufficiently relaxed due to the work posture. According to the court, it is plausible that the RSI complaints arose during the employee’s work.
In addition, the court held that the employer had not fulfilled its duty of care under Section 7:658 of the Civil Code. The court of appeal found that the employer did not dispute that the employee – given his limitations and the nature of his work – ran an increased risk of developing RSI complaints. Nor was it disputed that the employer had to take specific measures for this employee. Nor did it appear that the employer alternated work at a monitor with other work or rest time. As required under Article 5.10 of the Working Conditions Decree.
Moreover, the employer knew that the employee had a congenital disability and that it was difficult for him to leave his workplace to take rest periods. The court ruled that the employer had to ensure the workplace was properly set up and sufficient rest was taken. According to the court, the chair massage and fitness facilities for this employee were not targeted measures to prevent RSI complaints. This is especially true as the employee repeatedly stated that chair massage and fitness are not accessible or effective for him due to his limitations.
The court rejected the employer’s defence that the employee himself could have indicated what he needed and that he ‘did not want to be treated differently from colleagues’. According to the court, the employer must set the workplace correctly and ensure sufficient rest moments for the employee. Even if an employee indicates he does not want to be treated differently from colleagues, the duty of care remains undiminished.
What insights does this case offer for employers?
This ruling underlines once again: the duty of care is not a one-size-fits-all concept. A well-equipped workplace and general facilities are important, but not always sufficient. When there is an increased risk of health complaints, the employer must do more than just take general measures. In this case, that meant: specific measures tailored to the employee.
Do you have questions about your duty of care as an employer or about reducing health risks within your organisation? Feel free to contact us. We will be happy to think with you about how to limit your risks.