Wish I could up vote this more. The boss has showed their hand, and it's not going to be easy. The answer from Eric may be the most diplomatic, but it is the job of the managers to manage their resources properly. If they can't do that, that's their problem. It's not the resources job to find things to do.

@WGroleau They agreed to the notice (via the contract, and by employing people in a country with these legal restrictions), which I'm guessing is what gnasher meant.

@WGroleau In the Netherlands, notice periods for both employee and employer are defined in the contract with a legal minimum period depending on contract duration and employment duration. It is not relevant who gave notice.

In that case, I recommend an edit to the answer where it says "a company … gives you notice"

@WGroleau That edit seems appropriate and in-line with the author's intention, so you should feel free to make such edits. I've submitted it: workplace.stackexchange.com/suggested-edits/13390

Very good answer (+1). There is also the problem of accumulated vacation time: they may either have you stay at the office and pay you your vacation time, or force you to go on vacation during the notice time (and pay extra if there is more vacation than notice)

I'm not clear if you start the new job in one month. Your boss' statement sounds like he/she doesn't know that as they're saying they expect you to work in a month. If they do understand that then their expectation is absurd and you could reply with: "I expect you to have detailed your requirement from the start. I expect you to pay me one month salary. I will come to work each morning and and if you do not have work ready for me that day I will leave for the rest of the day."

@WoJ that’s not possible under the Dutch law.

@Summer: ah, thanks. So how is the accrued vacation time handled? Payed in full? Or part of the notice period?

@RandyZeitman: Threatening to leave if there are not any tasks defined immediately from the start of day probably won't fly. Try: "and if you do not have work ready for me that day I'll bring a book to read". Though, of course, even better would be if they can think of something useful to do on their own. Updating documentation is almost always a good bet.

@WoJ that depends on what you both agree, they can ask you to use up your days but I have no left so there’s not much to do there.

@HenningMakholm For what possible reason would the person bring a book to read if there's no work and they've stated he prefer he not be there is there is no work (because obviously it creates tension). You say it won't fly? ... why not. What would they do ... tell him to stay home? Well that's fine ... pay me my month's salary and I will.

@RandyZeitman: They could ask him to stay home. But if they don't do so, I can't see how any sane court would allow him to unilaterally declare "I refuse to receive instructions for which work you're paying me for at any time other than between 08.00 and 08.01".

@HenningMakholm They already did ask him to stay at home ... without pay. What court are you referring to ... there's no legal issue involved here. They are obligated to pay him and are demanding he forgo salary because there's no work. So what is the harm is accommodating them if there IS work for the day and if there is not?

@RandyZeitman: The legal issue is that you're recommending that he should demand to be treated more favorably than he is entitled to. He is entitled to pay yes, but he is not entitled to refuse to work for that pay (or invent additional unilateral requirements for the circumstancess he will deign to work in) like you say he should. He needs to be ready to work on the conditions of his ordinary employment.

If they tell him to go home with pay then he goes home, of course. If they don't tell him to go home with pay, then he don't get to decide to go home anyway. And he definitely don't get to say "you were not ready to tell me what to do at 08.00 so now I'm entitled to get paid for no work at all the entire day".

@HenningMakholm Sir, you're replying to a different situation the he original question. THEY said he can't work because there's not one month's worth of work. He's not refusing to work. There is no "if" ... they've already stated they want him to forgo being paid until they say there's enough work. He doesn't need to demand anything. He needs to be at work every day and if nothing's available he should leave as it's their position he's not welcome there when there's no work. I'm stating he should accommodate their demand that he not be there if there's no work.

@RandyZeitman it has already been argued that what the employer originally proposed wouldn't fly: They want unpaid leave. (OP not there, AND OP not get paid.) Since they apparently (legally) have to pay anyway, the other half of their original position may be irrelevant. It isn't up to OP to dictate unilaterally under what conditions they get to leave. Since the employer is going to be paying them, they might prefer have them sit around in the office doing nothing, and be available if something comes up.

@RandyZeitman: No, he's not refusing to work. But your proposal is that he should refuse to work unless they can tell him a task to do immediately when he comes in in the morning. That. Will. Not. Fly. He does not get to decide to leave in the circumstance where you argue he should make that decision. If he does, they would probably have every right to fire him immediately, without pay.