Supreme Court: Long-term Assignments may still be temporary under the Temporary Agency Workers Act

In a ruling delivered on 18 June 2026, the Danish Supreme Court considered the interaction between the Danish Temporary Agency Work Act (vikarloven) and the Danish Salaried Employees Act (funktionærloven), as well as the circumstances under which an assignment can be regarded as temporary within the definition of the Temporary Agency Work Act.

The cases concerned three employees who were engaged by a temporary workers agency under fixed-term contracts and assigned to work for Boeing and Siemens, respectively. The assignments were extended several times and lasted between approximately two and three and a half years.

The employees argued that, due to the length of their assignments, they were not covered by the Temporary Agency Work Act but instead by the Salaried Employees Act. Accordingly, they claimed entitlement to sick pay, salary during the notice period, and compensation under the Danish Fixed-Term Employment Act.

The cases raised two principal questions: Can temporary agency workers covered by the Temporary Agency Work Act also be covered by the Salaried Employees Act? And when should an assignment be regarded as temporary and therefore subject to the Temporary Agency Work Act?

Supreme Court: Temporariness Depends on a Case-by-Case Assessment 

The Supreme Court held that temporary agency workers covered by the Temporary Agency Work Act are, as a general rule, not simultaneously covered by the Salaried Employees Act, as they do not occupy a position of service (tjenestestilling) within the meaning of that Act.

At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that neither the duration of an assignment nor the number of successive extensions is, in itself, decisive in determining whether the Temporary Agency Work Act applies. Instead, the key consideration is whether, based on a specific assessment of the circumstances, the assignment was genuinely intended to be temporary and whether there was an objective and legitimate justification for the successive extensions. According to the Supreme Court, the concept of “temporary” must be interpreted broadly.

With respect to the two employees assigned to Siemens for approximately 25 months, the Supreme Court found that the multiple extensions were objectively justified by a planned discontinuation of the relevant IT support function. The assignments were therefore considered temporary, and the employees were covered by the Temporary Agency Work Act.

The situation was different for the third employee, who had been assigned to Boeing for approximately three and a half years. In this case, the Supreme Court found that it had not been established that the assignment and the subsequent extensions were intended to be temporary. Consequently, the Temporary Agency Work Act did not apply, and the employee was instead covered by the Salaried Employees Act. The employee was therefore entitled to sick pay, salary during the notice period, and compensation of DKK 25,000 under the Fixed-Term Employment Act.

The case also included a question as to whether the applicable collective agreement (the HK Salaried Employees’ Collective Agreement) complied with the equal treatment principle under the Temporary Agency Work Act. The Supreme Court declined to consider this issue, referring to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

Littler’s Comments 

The ruling provides important guidance for temporary workers, agencies and user companies. The Supreme Court rejects the idea that a fixed time limit can be set for when an assignment ceases to be temporary. Instead, the assessment depends on whether the assignment was intended to be temporary and whether any extensions can be justified by a genuine and objective temporary need.

The ruling also illustrates that even long-running temporary assignments do not necessarily amount to a misuse of temporary agency work arrangements. At the same time, the ruling shows that, based on a specific assessment, a temporary agency worker may fall outside the scope of the Temporary Agency Work Act.

The Supreme Court confirms, in line with previous case law, that a temporary agency worker covered by the Temporary Agency Work Act cannot at the same time be covered by the Salaried Employees Act.

Would you like to read more labor and employment law news from us? Click here.

Disclaimer: The above is not, and cannot replace, legal advice.

Reference to The Supreme Court ruling:
https://domstoldk.euwest01.umbraco.io/hoejesteret/aktuelt/2026/6/om-vikararbejde/