Is an employer allowed to prohibit a dog in the workplace?

These instructions typically relate to rules of conduct and workplace facilities. For example; wearing a helmet on site, company dress codes, smoking bans, or how many colleagues share an office space. Employees are generally expected to comply with such instructions.

Difference between the right to give instructions and employment conditions

It is important to distinguish these types of instructions from employment conditions. Employment conditions are agreements between employer and employee concerning essential matters such as salary, working hours, place of work, and leave entitlements. These conditions can, in principle, not be changed unilaterally by the employer without the employee’s consent.

Sometimes, disputes arise over whether a change falls under the employer’s right to issue instructions or constitutes a change to an employment term. For instance, requiring employees to wear a helmet clearly falls under the instruction right. In contrast, changes to salary or holiday entitlement are unmistakably changes to employment terms. However, not all cases are so clear-cut.

District Court of Midden-Nederland regarding a dog in the workplace

This distinction was central to a recent case of the District Court of Midden-Nederland. The facts were as follows: the employee had been working as a physiotherapist since 22 August 2019. From the start of his employment, he brought his dog to work. At the same location, six other employees also brought their dogs. As of 1 May 2025, a general ban on bringing dogs to work was introduced. The physiotherapist asked the court to lift the ban and allow him to continue bringing his dog under the same conditions as before.

Is bringing a dog to work an employment condition?

The first question the subdistrict court had to answer was whether bringing the dog to work qualified as an employment condition.

The physiotherapy practice argued that this was not an employment condition, but rather a tolerated practice that had gotten out of hand due to a manager’s lack of oversight. The employer claimed that the ban on pets fell within its instruction right to impose rules of conduct and that it had reasonably exercised this right. The reasons cited for the ban included complaints about nuisance caused by dogs, lack of clear policy, hygiene and safety risks, liability concerns, and the need for a consistent working environment across the organisation.

Court’s judgment: constitutes an employment condition

The court did not follow this reasoning. It ruled that bringing the dog to work could be considered an employment condition. According to the judge, it was not relevant whether the physiotherapist had explicitly agreed with his manager at the start of employment that he could bring his dog. What mattered was the consistent practice that had developed, which gave rise to an employment condition. Since 2019, the physiotherapist had always been allowed to bring his dog to work. He had never received complaints from clients and always asked whether they objected to the dog’s presence during treatment. Moreover, the court found it relevant that bringing the dog was important to the physiotherapist, as the dog would otherwise be left alone for long periods, and due to the location of his home, he could not use a dog-walking service.

When may an employment condition be amended?

The fact that this was deemed an employment condition does not mean it can never be changed. The physiotherapy practice would need to demonstrate a compelling business interest in changing this term—an interest that outweighs the physiotherapist’s interest in continuing to bring his dog to work. The court found that the employer had not sufficiently substantiated that circumstances had changed to justify altering this employment condition. Therefore, the physiotherapist could not be expected to agree to the change. Following the ruling, he was allowed to bring his dog to work again.

This type of dispute, whether a directive falls under the employer’s instruction right or constitutes a change to an employment term, is not limited to this case. It can also arise in situations such as an (verbal) agreement to work from home one day a week.

Are your employment conditions being unilaterally changed?

Do you believe that your employment terms are being changed without your consent? And you disagree with these changes? It might be wise to consult a lawyer.

More information

If you would like to receive advice or require assistance, please feel free to contact us. Our employment law experts are ready to assist you.