Be Aware - September 2025

Belgium’s “bridge pension” almost completely abolished

Belgium has traditionally had an early retirement regime commonly known as a “bridge pension”. Its official name is “unemployment with company allowance”. Legally, it’s not actually a form of retirement, but a system where an employee who meets the age and professional career requirement is dismissed and gets unemployment benefits until they reach retirement age. Besides respecting the notice period or paying an indemnity in lieu of notice, the last employer also pays a monthly allowance until the employee reaches retirement age.

Over the years, the government has gradually increased the minimum age and the professional career requirement. While the person could resume working and keep the monthly allowance paid by the former employer, this was rare in practice.

Under collective bargaining agreement n° 17, the general rule stipulated that to access the regime of unemployment with company allowance, the employee had to be at least 62 when the employment contract was effectively terminated. And they had to have worked in a professional role for at least 40 years. But there were exceptions with different thresholds. For instance, for employees aged at least 60 who had a professional career of at least 33 years and who had also worked at least 20 years on night shifts.

Under collective bargaining agreement n° 165, signed on 30 May 2023 by the National Labour Council, access to the regime is possible as of the age of 58, if the worker has a professional career of at least 35 years and is also either a disabled worker registered with the regional unemployment administration or a worker with serious physical difficulties. The Federal Agency for Professional Risks assesses the latter condition. The National Labour Council expects maximum 1,200 people per year will meet these conditions.

Even when an employee meets the conditions, an employer isn’t obliged to terminate the employment contract with a view of accessing the regime. If an employee is on long-term sick leave and is approaching retirement age, the employer might prefer not to do anything and just wait until the employee resigns to take their retirement pension.

Under Royal Decree of 5 September 2025, collective bargaining agreement n° 165 and its extensions are the only systems where workers can still access the unemployment with company allowance regime. All other forms are closed for new entrants.

This also concerns the possibility to ask to lower the minimum age for unemployment with company allowance when the employer was granted “employer in difficulties” or “employer in restructuring” status by the Federal Minister for Work. This used to be one of the first claims trade unions would make when an employer was contemplating a collective dismissal so as many impacted people as possible could access the regime. The trade unions generally perceived these terminations as granting early retirement, so in a sense was positive for the person involved. Royal Decree of 5 September 2025 abolished this possibility from 1 May 2025.

While people received unemployment benefits during the period of unemployment with company allowance, there was an exception to the requirement of availability for the job market. A considerable number of people under the “bridge pension” regime didn’t have to accept job offers they received from the unemployment administration and they didn’t have to actively look for a new job. Royal Decree of 5 September abolished this exemption as of 1 July 2025.

The Royal Decree of 5 September 2025 includes transition measures. For people who are currently receiving unemployment benefits and the company allowance, nothing changes, except that some people may have to apply for an exemption to the requirement of being available to the job market.

There are also transition measures for employees whose employer already terminated the employment contract with a view to accessing the regime and who are currently either respecting their notice period or in the period covered by the indemnity in lieu of notice.

 

Management claims for overtime arrears: who has the burden of proof?

Employment contracts for senior roles often include a clause stating the employee holds a managerial role and is exempt from the working time regulations. The clause means the employee isn’t entitled to any extra remuneration or overtime pay for any work on top of the normal work schedule. An Employment Appeal Tribunal of Brussels judgement on 4 April 2025 gives a good overview of the limited value these clauses have.

The employee involved worked as a dispatcher in a travel agency. The employee dispatched drivers to take travel agency clients to and from the airport. After his employment contract was terminated, the employee started a procedure before the Employment Tribunal. He said he’d performed extra hours and the employer hadn’t paid remuneration and overtime pay due. The employee’s contract included a clause stating he held a managerial role so was exempt from the working time regulations.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal started its reasoning by pointing out that the Labour Act of 16 March 1971 and a Royal Decree of 10 February 1965 include an exhaustive list of functions exempt from the working time regulations. This list is mandatory law. The employment contract that states the employee’s function by which they would be exempt from the working time regulations is void if the actual content of the function falls outside the listed functions.

One of the exempt functions under the Royal Decree of 10 February 1965 is “persons having the power to commit the employer towards third persons.” It’s established case law that this exception only covers people with genuine decision-making power when negotiating with the employer’s clients or suppliers. There is no fixed minimum amount of decision-making power the employee should hold, but it should be decisions of a certain importance. The basic rule is that employees are covered by the working time regulations and the exceptions should be construed narrowly.

In this case, the employee could only decide which driver would pick up which client. The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that the employee fell outside the exception of persons with genuine decision-making power. So he was covered by the working time regulations and was entitled to extra remuneration and in principle also overtime pay for work on top of the normal working schedule.

The next step was to assess whether the employee met the burden of proof for establishing that extra work was performed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal recalled two general principles of evidence. The Civil Code requires evidence and adds this means establishing a point with a reasonable degree of certainty, not necessarily absolute certainty. The Parliamentary Works even mention that establishing a 75% likelihood is sufficient. The Employment Appeal Tribunal also stated that the party invoking an argument in principle bears the burden of proof concerning the argument, but all parties have to cooperate with the administration of justice.

In this case, there was no objective time registration system. In its judgement of 14 May 2019 (C-55/18, Deutsche Bank), the European Court of Justice stated that accurately checking compliance with the working time regulations is in practice only possible if there’s a time registration system. But under Belgian law – as it stands – there’s no general obligation to have such a system.

The employee could only submit a draft version of the plan where the employer assigned each worker several shifts for each month. This planning was inconclusive for the Employment Appeal Tribunal, as the plan for the subsequent month showed when each worker was expected to work, but not the hours actually worked. If a worker was absent and a colleague had to take over a shift, no updated version of the plan was shared.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded the employee couldn’t prove he’d worked more than the normal work schedule so considered the claim for arrears unfounded.