Bill on trusted advisor: what changes this year?
In the Netherlands, there is a proposed law that requires employers to appoint a trusted contact person for employees who encounter undesired conduct, such as bullying, discrimination or sexual harassment. At present, this proposal has not yet become final legislation. The processing in the House of Representatives and the Senate takes time, and the exact date on which any obligation would come into effect is not yet fixed.
As an employer, this means above all that you keep track of developments, without any concrete action being required that you must complete today. However, it is wise to already understand how a trusted contact person relates to the reporting procedure you may already have in place for breaches of law, so that you are not caught off guard if the proposal becomes law.
What does the proposal entail
The proposed law focuses on undesired conduct in the workplace: conduct between colleagues that affects the work atmosphere and safety. A trusted contact person is then the first point of contact for an employee who encounters this. This person listens, thinks through possible next steps and can refer onwards, but does not handle a formal complaint themselves and does not conduct an investigation. This is markedly different from the reporting channel for breaches of law, where a handler does factually investigate the report and must respond within a fixed time frame.
The difference with your reporting channel for persons who report breaches of law
Companies with fifty or more employees already have a legal obligation to have an internal reporting channel for breaches of law, with a written or oral entry, the option to report anonymously and fixed time frames for feedback. That channel covers breaches of law such as fraud, unsafe working conditions or violations of rules. A trusted contact person covers something different: the personal, often emotionally charged area of undesired conduct between people.
These two routes can exist side by side without replacing each other. A report about undesired conduct can, depending on its nature and severity, also come in via the reporting channel. In that case, the existing procedure applies: the handler confirms receipt and informs the person reporting within the known time frames about the next steps. Anyone who still needs to determine whether the obligation to report breaches of law applies to their own organisation will find a clear overview in the short check of whether the reporting obligation applies to you.
For whom this is already relevant
Organisations that have long been receiving signals about undesired conduct, such as companies with a lot of operational staff or flat teams without a separate HR department, would do well to start thinking now about the role of a trusted contact person, even without a legal obligation. Many employers voluntarily choose to fill that role already, precisely because it contributes to a safe work atmosphere and because it fits with the broader integrity approach within the organisation.
What is important is that a trusted contact person is not a substitute for a formal reporting channel and that the two do not overlap in task or authority. If you want to combine both, it is wise to clearly establish in advance who fulfils which role and how an employee finds the right entry point. More background on how a reporting procedure works and where the dividing lines are can be found in the knowledge bank with explanations by topic.
What is still uncertain
Because the proposed law is still being processed, it is not possible to predict whether, when and in what precise form the obligation will be introduced. Changes during parliamentary processing are always possible, for example in the threshold for the number of employees or in the requirements for the trusted contact person themselves. For a current and complete interpretation of the legislation and the status of the proposal, the official source is authoritative; signalo.eu follows the development, but does not provide legal advice on the implications for your specific organisation. If in doubt, consult a lawyer or the competent authority.
In addition, the existing reporting obligation for misconduct remains unchanged, with its own timelines and responsibilities for the person handling the case. How these two tracks—the existing reporting channel and a future confidential advisor—come together in practice depends on the specific implementation of the bill. On our frequently asked questions page we keep track of which questions on this topic come up most often.
Start with a reporting channel now
If your organisation does not yet have an internal reporting channel while the reporting obligation does apply, you do not need to wait for the outcome of the confidential advisor bill. Both processes are separate from each other. See in a few minutes how such a reporting channel is structured and where the information comes from via the explanation of how the platform works.
Curious whether the reporting obligation applies to your organisation and what must already be in place? Do the free check or browse through the knowledge base; both are accessible without an account and provide a direct answer.