Safety instructions and language: was the explanation actually effective?

23 September 2026

Arslan Advocaten

Need help urgently?

Safety instructions and language: was the explanation actually effective?

The law does not require a safety instruction to be given in your own language. The law requires the instruction to be effective. If you did not understand what was expected of you, your employer has not fulfilled its duty, even if there is a signed form. A signature on a Dutch-language document proves that you signed it, not that you understood it.

Nederlands: Lees dit artikel in het Nederlands: Veiligheidsinstructies en taal: was de uitleg wel doeltreffend?

Türkçe: Bu makaleyi Türkçe okuyun: Güvenlik talimatları ve dil: açıklama gerçekten etkili miydi?

Written by Onur Arslan, attorney at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the specialisation register of the Netherlands Bar for employment law and personal injury. Content reviewed on 17 September 2026 against the statutory text on wetten.overheid.nl.

What the law requires of an instruction

Two provisions work together here.

Article 7:658(1) of the Dutch Civil Code (BW) obliges the employer to take the measures and give the instructions that are reasonably necessary to prevent you from suffering harm in the performance of your work. Article 8 of the Working Conditions Act (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet) elaborates on this: the employer must ensure that employees are effectively informed about the work, the associated risks and the measures against them. It must also ensure that the instructions are complied with.

The whole dispute turns on that word “effective”. Effective means tailored to the person in front of you. An experienced mechanic needs only a hint. An agency worker who is standing at a machine for the first time today and does not speak Dutch needs something different.

Paper versus practice

After an accident, employers often point to documents: a signed induction form, a safety booklet, an e-learning module with a tick box. Those documents count, but they are not decisive. The question is whether the instruction was adequate in the specific work situation.

What is often on file	What the court wants to know
Signed safety form	What was actually said and shown? In which language? By whom?
Safety booklet in Dutch	Did the employee command the language well enough to understand the text?
Pictograms on the machine	Were they visible from the workstation, and did they concern this risk?
General induction day	Was there instruction for this specific machine and this specific task?
“He was experienced”	What shows that experience, and did it also apply to this type of work?
Instruction on joining	Was it repeated when the work or the equipment changed?

An example from the warehouse

On his second day, an agency worker is asked to use an electric pallet truck because it is busy. He is told: “here’s the button, off you go.” There is no instruction on braking distance, on driving when the load blocks his view, or on the walkway used by colleagues. Nobody checks whether he understands. While reversing, he hits a colleague.

The employer will point to the induction form the agency worker signed on day one. That form dealt with general house rules, not with this item of work equipment. The defence is then thin: there was no instruction for this task, no demonstration and no supervision.

For motorised means of transport there is an additional requirement. The Working Conditions Decree (Arbobesluit) requires that self-propelled mobile work equipment be operated only by employees who have received appropriate training for it. If that training is missing, the employer is left empty-handed.

How far does the duty of care extend for everyday tasks?

The duty of care is broad, but not absolute. When assessing whether a dangerous situation is unlawful, courts have, since the Kelderluik (cellar hatch) judgment, weighed four factors: how likely it is that someone will not pay attention, how likely an accident is, how serious the consequences are, and how burdensome it would have been to take precautions (Supreme Court, 5 November 1965, ECLI:NL:HR:1965:AB7079).

That last factor is important where language is an issue. Giving an instruction in an understandable language, demonstrating it and having the worker repeat it back costs little. Precisely because the measure is so simple, failing to take it weighs heavily.

At the same time, the employer does not have to warn against every everyday risk. For tasks everyone is familiar with, it may assume that an employee will exercise normal care. The difference lies in the particular risk of the workplace.

What you can record about the instruction

Who gave the instruction, in which language, and how long did it last?
Was it demonstrated, or only explained?
Was it checked whether you understood, for example by having you repeat it?
Was there an interpreter, a colleague who translated, or material in your language?
Did you receive a copy of what you signed? If not, request one.
Was someone present when you did the work for the first time?
Did the work or the equipment change after the instruction?

If you are an agency worker, ask both the employment agency and the hirer for the documents. The employment agency must give you a document setting out the workplace risks before you start; the hirer gives the instruction on the shop floor.

Help with a case about instruction and language

Has your claim been rejected on the grounds that you were “sufficiently instructed”? Have what actually happened assessed. We request the instruction documents, the risk assessment and the maintenance log and compare them with your own statement.

Call 070 450 0300 or send your question via the contact form.

Frequently asked questions

Does my employer have to give the instruction in my own language?

The law does not prescribe a language, but it does require the information to be effective. If you do not understand the language well enough, an instruction in Dutch is not effective and the employer has not met its obligation.

I signed a safety form. Does that mean I have no chance?

No. A signature proves that you signed something, not that the instruction was adequate and understandable. What was actually said and shown is decisive.

Are pictograms sufficient as an instruction?

Pictograms are a supplement, not a substitute. They warn of a hazard but do not explain how to work safely. For machinery and means of transport, appropriate training is required.

I am an agency worker. Who has to instruct me?

Both. The employment agency must inform you in advance about the risks at the workplace; the hirer gives the instruction and supervises on the shop floor. Both may be liable, the hirer under Article 7:658(4) of the Dutch Civil Code (BW).

Does an instruction have to be repeated?

Yes, if the work, the equipment or the risks change. And where routine leads to inattention, the employer may be expected to keep instructing and supervising.