The dominant position on the non-compete clause has changed in recent times. Prior to 1997, a non-competition clause had to be agreed in writing. This written agreement could be included not only in a written agreement between the employer and the worker, but also in a document containing the internal building rules (regulation). The latter scheme allowed the worker to be bound by a non-compete clause that he did not personally approve. The worker should be protected from odious non-competition clauses by the rules of procedure relating to the establishment of labour rules. It was consistent with this reasoning that non-competition obligations could also be considered to be the subject of a collective agreement: the provision was not considered purely personal, but only as additional procedural safeguards. This changed when the Employment Contracts Act entered the new Civil Code on 6 June 1996.  On this occasion, the legislation on non-competition clauses was reformulated, which excluded the possibility of addressing the problem of the non-competition clause in internal operating rules. According to the explanatory report of the 1996 Act, this amendment is intended to ensure that the worker personally agrees on possible restrictions on his future employment.  Since then, it has been held that non-competition agreements cannot be included in collective agreements either.  A collective agreement may entail special rights for workers, including the right to: .
However, collective agreements relating to pension plans are covered by separate laws, the Pensioen- in spaarfondsenwet, May 15, 1962 stb. 1962, 275 with subsequent modifications and the Wet verplichte deelneming in een bedrijfspensioenfonds, 17 March 1949, with subsequent modifications. . Collective agreements cannot take effect as such when notification has been made: Wet op de loonvorming (Wet op de loonvorming) Art. 4. As has already been said, in the post-war period, all collective agreements were standard agreements that did not allow for any exceptions. Today, the employer and the worker are generally free to agree on more favourable conditions for the worker.  This already leads to some flexibility at the personal level. But modern collective agreements go further.
The working conditions a card refer to a system in which the worker can choose between different working conditions. Paid leave can be exchanged for travel expenses, reduced weekly working hours for sabbaticals or child care, etc. This system can become quite complex and obscure the issue of more favourable provisions. While the Supreme Court recently ruled that the question of whether an individual contract is more favourable than the collective agreement must be decided on a regular basis pay-per-view agreements can only be judged as a whole. As a result, mandatory provisions generally have a binding effect on individual and collective parties. An exception in favour of collective agreements is that of the law on the mandatory three-quarters: legal provisions that can be derogated by collective agreements, but not by individual agreements. The concept of three-quarters of the law allows employment conditions to be adapted to the needs of a particular sector while guaranteeing the protection of individual workers (assuming that trade unions effectively protect workers). The text of the provision itself shows whether a provision is mandatory for three-quarters.