How to avoid that “just a test” becomes an employment relationship: the rules for practical tests during recruitment

18/08/2026

Belgium News

by Jolina Vanpuyvelde Catherine Kerrebrouck

Practical tests are commonly used during recruitment. They allow employers to assess whether a candidate has the knowledge and skills required for a particular position. This may be particularly relevant for technical roles or functions requiring specific practical skills.

A practical test must, however, remain a genuine recruitment assessment. It cannot become a trial period or (give the impression that it is) a way to obtain unpaid work. When a candidate is carrying out tasks at the employer’s workplace, social inspectors may ask whether the candidate is genuinely being assessed or is in fact performing work under an employment relationship. Employers should therefore carefully consider the organization of the test before the candidate begins.

What is a practical test and what conditions apply?

A practical test forms part of the recruitment and selection procedure. It may be organized alongside an interview or a written examination. Its purpose is limited. The Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 38 provides that, where the selection procedure includes a productive practical test, the test may not last longer than necessary to assess the candidate’s ability.

Belgian case law has developed further principles around practical tests. In general, the test must be:

Limited in duration.
Unpaid.
Focused on assessing the candidate’s skills.
Not organized for the employer’s financial benefit.
Supervised by an experienced or qualified person.

1. Limited duration

The test should last only as long as necessary to assess the relevant skills. In many cases, a few hours will be sufficient. A test may be spread over several days for specific functions, but each part must remain necessary and proportionate to the skills being assessed.

The candidate’s experience and qualifications are relevant. Where the candidate already has the required diploma or extensive experience, the employer should consider whether a shorter test would be sufficient.

The practical test should not turn into a trial period. Recent case law distinguishes between a short test, which allows the employer to assess whether the candidate has sufficient skills and allows the candidate to become familiar with the work, and a trial period, which involves a more thorough assessment based on the work performed by the candidate.

The test should therefore remain focused and limited. It should not be used to assess how the candidate performs over several full working days.

The test should also not serve as a general assessment of whether the candidate fits into the company or integrates well into the team. Those aspects may be relevant to the broader recruitment process, but they cannot justify a period of unpaid practical work.

2. No remuneration

The candidate must not receive a salary or other remuneration for carrying out the test.

The employer may reimburse actual expenses incurred by the candidate, such as travel expenses, provided that the reimbursement corresponds to the costs and is supported by appropriate documents. However, the amount paid should not depend on the duration, productivity or commercial value of the candidate’s performance.

The employer should also bear the costs connected with the test, including necessary materials and equipment. Those costs should not be shifted to the candidate.

3. No financial benefit

The purpose of the test must be to assess the candidate’s abilities. It must not be to obtain profitable work for the employer or its customers. The candidate should not be asked to perform ordinary work that the employer would have to carry out anyway. This includes replacing an employee during a shift, completing ordinary production tasks or performing work that is invoiced to a customer.

The courts have accepted that a test may have some “useful value”. That value must remain incidental and uncertain. It cannot be the reason why the test is organized. The relevant question is therefore not whether the candidate performs a task that could be useful. The question is why the task was organized. If the task was designed to assess the candidate’s skills and any useful value was merely a side effect, the arrangement may still qualify as a practical test. If the employer mainly benefits from the work performed, the risk of requalification increases.

The timing of the test may form part of this assessment. A test scheduled during a busy period, for example during a period with high customer activity, may raise questions about whether the candidate’s work served a commercial purpose. This factor will not be decisive on its own. The employer should be able to demonstrate that the test was organized because it was necessary to assess the candidate, and not because the employer needed additional labor.

4. Supervision

The candidate should carry out the test in the presence of an experienced or qualified employee who can assess the work performed. This condition is sometimes overlooked, but it logically follows from the purpose of the test. If the employer is assessing the candidate’s skills, someone must be present to observe and evaluate the candidate’s performance. The supervisor does not have to be the employer or the company’s managing director. An experienced employee may be sufficient, provided that the person is able to evaluate the candidate’s performance.

A candidate who works autonomously without anyone present assessing the work may be considered to be performing ordinary work rather than taking part in a recruitment test.

How should employers prepare?

The conditions described above should be addressed before the candidate begins the test. The employer should first identify the skills to be assessed and design a short exercise that is directly related to the position. The candidate’s qualifications and previous experience should also be considered. Where these already demonstrate the relevant skills, a lengthy practical test may be difficult to justify.

It is strongly recommended to record the practical arrangements in writing. This is particularly important in the event of a social inspection, as social inspectors are likely to pay close attention when a candidate appears to be carrying out actual work during a practical test.

The employer should be able to explain how the test forms part of a genuine recruitment process. A written document agreed with the candidate in advance can help demonstrate this. It should explain what the test involves, which skills will be assessed, how long it will last, where it will take place and who will supervise the candidate. It should also state that the test is unpaid, identify any actual expenses that may be reimbursed and confirm that the test is not intended to generate profit for the employer or its customers.

Clear communication with the candidate is equally important. The employer should avoid any wording or conduct that could create an expectation that the candidate will be paid. The invitation should be consistent with the written document. Whether sent by email or included in a calendar invitation, it should clearly state that the candidate is invited to take part in a practical test and should briefly explain its purpose and expected duration.

An employer that prepares the test carefully and documents the arrangements in advance will be better placed to show that the candidate’s activities remain limited to a genuine recruitment assessment. In this way, the employer can avoid a situation in which in the first place a labor inspectorate would conclude that employment had taken place (based on a permanent employment contract) without an immediate Dimona declaration of the employment, in which case the employer in question would be subject to a (maximum) Level 4 penalty under the Social Penal Code.