A new Supreme Court judgment has just been handed down, and it will affect all companies that use temporary agency workers or fixed‑term employment. The case concerns when an employee is actually a temporary worker – and when they must instead be regarded as a salaried employee in relation to the temp agency. It sounds technical, but the consequences are very practical: it can determine whether an employee is entitled to sick pay, notice of termination, and compensation.

This article gives you an overview of the judgment and explains what your company should pay attention to going forward.

Background of the case

Three employees were hired by a temp agency and assigned to Boeing and Siemens respectively. All three had fixed‑term contracts that were extended several times. The question was whether they continued to be temporary workers – or whether their employment had in fact developed into a salaried position.

The Supreme Court therefore had to assess when an assignment can be considered temporary. This is a prerequisite for the Temporary Agency Workers Act to apply. If the assignment is not temporary, the employee falls outside the scope of the Act and may instead be considered a salaried employee.

What the Supreme Court emphasised

The judgment makes it clear that it is not enough for a contract to have an end date or for the parties to label the employment as temporary. The decisive factor is whether the assignment from the outset – and at each extension – can be explained by concrete circumstances at the user company.

In one of the cases, the temp agency could not document that the assignment was linked to a temporary process. There was no clear information about why the employee should be fixed‑term, and the explanations provided came several years later. The Supreme Court therefore found that the assignment was not temporary, and the employee was considered a salaried employee entitled to sick pay and notice of termination.

In the other case, the situation was different. Here, the company could document that there was a specific outsourcing process that ran over a longer period. The extensions were connected to tendering, supplier selection, and transfer of tasks. Therefore, the assignment was considered temporary, and the employees remained covered by the Temporary Agency Workers Act.

What the judgment means for companies

The judgment shows that companies must be far more attentive to the documentation behind fixed‑term employment. It is no longer sufficient to extend a temporary contract because “the need continues”. There must be a concrete, objective justification that can be traced back to conditions at the user company.

This also means that long temporary assignments are not necessarily unlawful – but they require clear and ongoing justification. The longer the assignment lasts, the stronger the documentation must be.

If documentation is lacking, the company risks that the employee will later be considered a salaried employee. This may lead to claims for sick pay, notice of termination, and compensation for unlawful fixed‑term employment.

What you should pay attention to going forward

If your company uses temporary workers or fixed‑term employment, it is a good idea to review your current practices. Ensure that for each assignment and each extension there is a clear and written justification that can be documented. This may include project plans, tender materials, internal decisions, or correspondence showing why the assignment is temporary.

It is also important to be aware that a message stating that a customer assignment is ending is not necessarily a termination of the employment relationship. If the employment risks being considered open‑ended, the termination must be clear and formally correct.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment provides greater clarity but also imposes stricter requirements for documentation and process management. We recommend that companies establish fixed routines for documenting temporariness – both at the first assignment and at each extension. This is a simple way to minimise the risk of later claims for salaried‑employee rights.

Raadgiver is available if you would like a review of your temporary‑worker practices or advice on other employment‑law matters.

This article does not constitute and cannot replace legal advice. Raadgiver.dk ApS accepts no liability for any damage or loss directly or indirectly attributable to the use of the information contained in the article.

Published August 2026