Wage Freeze Imposed in Belgium for 2025-2026
What You Need to Know
Key takeaway #1
The Belgian Government has fixed the Belgian wage norm at 0% for the period 2025-2026.
Key takeaway #2
Any deviation from the 0% wage norm at intersectoral, sectoral, company or individual level is prohibited. Non-compliance can result in a significant fine.
Key takeaway #3
Certain limited salary increases remain possible.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.08.25
The Belgian wage norm framework and the current wage freeze
Belgian labor law fixes the maximum margin by which labor costs may increase in any given period (the “wage norm”). The reason for this wage norm framework is to preserve the country’s competitiveness in the international market.
Every two years, the Belgian Central Economic Council prepares a outlining the permissible margin for labor cost development, based on the expected evolution in Germany, France and the Netherlands. The Belgian Government, following negotiations with the social partners based on this report, has now set the wage norm for the period 2025-2026 at 0%.
In concrete terms, this means that the average wage cost may not increase. Any deviation from the wage norm at intersectoral, sectoral, company or individual level is prohibited. Non-compliance can result in a fine between €250 and €5,000 for the employer. This fine is multiplied by the number of employees involved, up to a maximum of 100 employees.
It should be noted, however, that salary indexation and “baremic” increases are not covered by this general prohibition. Similarly, an increase in the wage bill resulting from a rise in the number of full-time equivalent employees at company level is also permitted.
What salary increases remain possible during the wage freeze?
Although the wage norm is set at 0%, this does not mean that employee remuneration is completely frozen. Some exceptions exist, such as:
- benefits granted in the previous two years: these may continue to be granted in the period 2025-2026. They may take a different form, but they may not be increased;
- collective bonus plans under CLA no. 90: bonuses given as a reward for achieving a collective target remain a possibility, but are capped at €4,164 gross per employee per year (for 2025);
- profit bonuses: non-recurring, collective bonuses linked to the profit for the financial year are acceptable, but the total amount of the profit distributed may not exceed 30% of the total gross wage bill;
- employee participation: the distribution of shares, cash or participation certificates in the context of employee participation;
- profit-sharing;
- social pension scheme contributions;
- one-off innovation premiums.
For further advice on how the wage freeze may impact your business and how to manage this, please contact our Brussels Labour and Employment team.
Crowell would like to thank Safia Saissi for her contribution to this alert.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25



