Heavy work payments prior to pension transition may cost employees more than it yields
Publication date: 18 May 2026
An increasing number of employers and trade unions are discussing the introduction of a heavy work scheme based on the RVU threshold exemption. This is understandable: employees performing heavy work should be able to reach retirement in good health. However, where the employer is affiliated with a pension fund that has yet to transition to the new system, introducing such a scheme prior to the transition date is not always logical and may even be detrimental to employees.
The core of the issue
As part of the transition to the new pension system, pension funds are making arrangements for compensation for certain categories of participants. This compensation is generally intended for active participants; employees who are still employed and accruing pension rights on the transition date.
Heavy work payments based on the RVU threshold exemption implies that pension accrual must cease. This follows from the 2024 social partners’ agreement Healthy Towards Retirement (‘Gezond naar het pensioen’). From a legal and pension-technical perspective, such a scheme generally results in the employee becoming an inactive participant before the pension fund’s transition date. This is where the issue arises.
What does this mean in practice?
An employee aged 64 or older who makes use of a heavy work scheme ceases working, stops accruing pension, and is classified as a former (inactive) participant. If the pension fund then transitions thereafter, there is a real risk that this employee—having exited via the heavy work scheme—will fall outside the scope of the compensation arrangements.
The financial impact may be substantial, potentially amounting to thousands or even tens of thousands of euros.
In other words, the employee leaves employment early due to health-related or workload reasons, loses pension accrual, and at the same time misses out on pension compensation that colleagues who remain employed do receive. This is difficult to explain and is perceived as unfair by many employees.
Why this is particularly sensitive
The decision to make use of a heavy work scheme is often irreversible. Once an employee exits, they cannot later “re-enter” in order to qualify as an active participant at the time of transition. In some cases, voluntary continuation of pension accrual may be possible, but the risk—in principle—lies entirely with the employee, who does not always have full visibility of the consequences. For that reason alone, introducing a heavy work scheme without explicitly taking this effect into account would be imprudent.
Conclusion
A heavy work scheme may be appropriate and justified. However, if it is introduced before the pension fund has transitioned, it may unintentionally lead to financial disadvantages for employees. As long as the transition date has not yet been reached, implementing such a scheme involves inherent risk. Caution in decision-making is therefore warranted, and it is essential that employees are always fully, timely, and explicitly informed about the potential pension consequences if the heavy work scheme is implemented prior to the pension transition date.
