VAN HOEK Most employers fulfil this duty by a greeing with each of their employees that the current sector agreement will apply to their contract. In this way up to 85 % of workers are covered by collective agreements even though only approx. 26 %are members of a union. 50 The influence of the Dutch unions far exceeds their representativeness based on membership only. The Collective Labour Agreements Declaration of General Binding and Non- binding Status)Act only enhances this effect Through the decree on general applica bility a sector agreement, or rather certain provisions thereof become binding on anyone falling within its scope of application The most important effect in practice is that the collective agreement from then on also applies to the employees of non-organized employers. But, strictly speaking, the decree also changes the position of the other players'in the field. Those already bound by the collective agreement itself are now bound by the decree as well. The Article 14' employees are legally bound whereas previously they were not. I And finally, the decree limits the freedom of the parties to the original collective agreement. Both the effect of generally binding provisions on the individual contract and the remedies for the breach thereof are very similar to those concerning collective agreements in general. However, such generally binding prov isions do not remodel the individual la bour contractas the collective agreement itself does. They are looked upon as quasi-statutory provisions. This means, inter alia, that the decree on general applicability does not have any after-effect. 52 After expiry of the decree,the pre-existing indiv idual contract is revived. This causes problems of continuity, which are to some extent countered by the judiciary using concepts from the law of contract In 1993 the Supreme Court dealt with supplementary wages for work ing overtime anted in a collective agreement. Did the employee have a right to be supplemented even when the collective agreement was no longer applicable and the indidividua greement was silent on this point? The Supreme Court decided that the answer depended on the rea sonable expectations of the parties. 53 In 1994 the question arose whether an employee could still claim supplementary sickness benefit from his employerafter the relevant provision in the collective a greement had ceased to apply to his individual contract. In this case the Supreme Court used the doctrine of rarely occurs. Collective agreements sometimes contanspecal benefits for organized employees, n hch case the unions will derogate from Art. 14. Such stipulations arenot welcome though, mainly for politicalreasons. Representativiteitv an de social partners n Nederland (in intemational perspectief), Reaction of the Minister of Social Affairs to a parliamentary question by Wilders MP, 8 February 2001, AVA&M200/1324,p.3 An individual agreement between an employer who is bound by a collective agreement and an mployee who i not, s valid even if it contains provisions which violate the collective agreement However, the employer acts in breach of the collective agreement when entering nto such an HR 18 January 1980, NJ 1980, 348, AA H van Hoek, Internationale mobiliteit van erknemers, Den Haag: SDU2000, P 47, C.E.M. Schute, Overzichtvan het CAO-recht Nimegen Ars Aequi Libri, 2th edition 1998,85.3.5 HR2 April 1993, NJ 1994, 612.VAN HOEK 12 Most employers fulfil this duty by agreeing with each of their employees that the current sector agreement will apply to their contract. In this way up to 85 % of workers are covered by collective agreements even though only approx. 26 % are members of a union.50 The influence of the Dutch unions far exceeds their representativeness based on membership only. The Collective Labour Agreements (Declaration of General Binding and Non-binding Status) Act only enhances this effect. Through the decree on general applicability a sector agreement, or rather certain provisions thereof become binding on anyone falling within its scope of application. The most important effect in practice is that the collective agreement from then on also applies to the employees of non-organized employers. But, strictly speaking, the decree also changes the position of the other ‘players’ in the field. Those already bound by the collective agreement itself are now bound by the decree as well. The ‘Article 14’ employees are legally bound whereas previously they were not.51 And finally, the decree limits the freedom of the parties to the original collective agreement. Both the effect of generally binding provisions on the individual contract and the remedies for the breach thereof are very similar to those concerning collective agreements in general. However, such generally binding provisions do not ‘remodel’ the individual labour contract as the collective agreement itself does. They are looked upon as quasi-statutory provisions. This means, inter alia, that the decree on general applicability does not have any after-effect.52 After expiry of the decree, the pre-existing individual contract is revived. This causes problems of continuity, which are to some extent countered by the judiciary using concepts from the law of contract. In 1993 the Supreme Court dealt with supplementary wages for working overtime granted in a collective agreement. Did the employee have a right to be supplemented even when the collective agreement was no longer applicable and the indidividual agreement was silent on this point? The Supreme Court decided that the answer depended on the reasonable expectations of the parties.53 In 1994 the question arose whether an employee could still claim supplementary sickness benefit from his employer after the relevant provision in the collective agreement had ceased to apply to his individual contract. In this case the Supreme Court used the doctrine of rarely occurs. Collective agreements sometimes contain special benefits for organized employees, in which case the unions will derogate from Art. 14. Such stipulations are not welcome though, mainly for political reasons. 50. Representativiteit van de sociale partners in Nederland (in internationaal perspectief), Reaction of the Minister of Social Affairs to a parliamentary question by Wilders M.P., 8 February 2001, AV/A&M/2001/1324, p. 3. 51. An individual agreement between an employer who is bound by a collective agreement and an employee who is not, is valid even if it contains provisions which violate the collective agreement. However, the employer acts in breach of the collective agreement when entering into such an individual agreement. 52. HR 18 January 1980, NJ 1980, 348; A.A.H. van Hoek, Internationale mobiliteit van werknemers, Den Haag: SDU 2000, p. 47, C.E.M. Schutte, Overzicht van het CAO-recht, Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri, 2th edition 1998, § 5.3.5. 53. HR 2 April 1993, NJ 1994, 612