Collective labour agreement (CLA) negotiations between state-owned operator Holland Casino and trade union De Unie have entered a difficult phase. In the
Collective labour agreement (CLA) negotiations between state-owned operator Holland Casino and trade union De Unie have entered a difficult phase. In the first round of talks, Holland Casino rejected the majority of the union’s initial proposals, citing significant financial uncertainty stemming from recent and proposed increases in the gambling tax rate.
The central disagreement in the negotiations revolves around demands for wage increases, improved working conditions, and additional employee benefits. These points of contention are closely linked to growing concerns within the company over the financial impact of government-imposed gambling tax hikes.
De Unie had put forward a range of proposals for the new CLA. 1 These included calls for a general wage increase for employees, the designation of May 5 as an official holiday, provisions for company-paid union dues, and improved arrangements related to informal care and remote work options.
However, Holland Casino declined most of these initial points. The operator cited ‘material uncertainty’ as the primary reason for rejecting the majority of the union’s proposals, directly linking this uncertainty to the impact of recent and proposed tax increases on its financial outlook.
Specifically, the company highlighted the effect of the rise in the gambling tax rate from 30.5% to 34.2% that came into effect in 2025, and a further proposed increase to 37.8% currently planned for 2026. Given these fiscal pressures, Holland Casino has proposed a one-year CLA rather than a longer-term agreement. Within this proposed one-year contract, the company has offered a conditional wage increase: a 1% raise in January 2026, with the potential for this increase to rise to 2.5% only if the proposed second tax hike for 2026 does not proceed. Holland Casino also indicated plans to prioritise the implementation of its ‘Occupation & Flexibility’ project this year.
De Unie has expressed concern regarding the limited scope for wage growth presented by the casino’s proposal and the perceived lack of a long-term vision on salary development. The union is pushing for more concrete assurances regarding employee compensation. De Unie maintains its position that employees should not be forced to bear the financial burden resulting from government-imposed tax increases on the sector and is advocating for wage adjustments that are not solely contingent on future tax policy outcomes.
The next round of negotiations between Holland Casino and De Unie is scheduled for May 19, with further sessions tentatively planned for June. However, both parties acknowledge that reaching a full agreement in the short term is unlikely, indicating that discussions may be protracted as they work to bridge the significant gap revealed in this initial phase, particularly concerning the financial implications of the gambling tax rate.
