News

Can an employee follow his own course if his employment contract says otherwise? In this case before the Breda Subdistrict Court, that discussion got out of hand. The employee was listed on paper as an office worker, but continued to behave as a “theme specialist” and spent a lot of time on drawings and theme proposals. Despite several discussions, this did not change. The result: a disrupted working relationship, according to the employer.

In this case, the court ruled in favor of the employer. The decisive factor was the structural mismatch between the job description and the employee's actions, compounded by friction in communication and customer contact regarding the suspension. The isolated incidents that the employer also cited as grounds for dismissal for “(serious) culpable conduct” were not considered serious enough by the subdistrict court: the € 71,78 spent on fuel with the company card was immediately reimbursed, the keys were returned, and an incorrect job title on LinkedIn is not in itself decisive. The termination was therefore based on a disrupted working relationship.

What is unusual about this case is that the employer apparently rejected the employee's offer of mediation, but this did not prevent the termination. The ruling states that the employee did not revisit this issue. With a company of approximately nine people, redeployment was not a realistic option. The employee's sick leave did not prevent the termination, because the request was not motivated by that illness.

The outcome was therefore a termination of the employment contract. The employee received a transition payment, but other claims, such as fair compensation, were rejected.

Tip: draw up a clear job profile with tasks and responsibilities and also record any changes. This will prevent discussions.

Read the ruling here.

If you have any questions about the ruling, please contact Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, or Dennis Oud.

Enforcement by administrative bodies often concerns compliance with permits or legislation and regulations. Normally, this only concerns applicable regulations and rules, but can this be enforcement based on the base of outdated permits or regulations?

This issue was raised in a case before the Limburg District Court. The plaintiff experienced noise pollution from the adjacent building. He therefore submitted an enforcement request to the municipality, because he believed that the regulations from a 1992 permit had not been complied with, which would cause the noise pollution.

The municipal executive rejected the enforcement request because the building regulations referred to in the permit no longer exist. According to the municipal executive, enforcement based on outdated regulations is not possible. The court disagreed and ruled that, in principle, it is possible to enforce a permit requirement from an old building permit, even if that permit requirement refers to requirements from a building regulation that is no longer in force. Instead of immediately rejecting the enforcement request, the council should have investigated what the requirements of the building regulation were and whether the current construction meets the old requirements. Because the council failed to do so, it could not conclude that there was no violation and therefore could not simply reject the enforcement request.

So please note: if laws and regulations no longer apply, this does not mean that enforcement of compliance with them is excluded.

You can read the ruling here. 

Sick on the same day that the resignation request was submitted to the UWV, but still no prohibition on termination? How is that possible?

On May 6, 2025, at 2:36 p.m., the well-known shoe brand Crocs submitted a dismissal application to the UWV for (among others) an HR Business Partner. That same evening, at 7:54 p.m., the employee reported sick after a fall. She got out of the car after returning home from work and lost her balance. The next day, she was informed that her position had been terminated.

The UWV rejected Crocs' dismissal application due to the prohibition of termination during illness. After all, the sick report was made on the same day as the dismissal application. According to the UWV, case law and parliamentary documents indicate that the prohibition of termination during illness applies in this case.

The subdistrict court judge disagreed.

The literal text of the law states that the prohibition on dismissal does not apply if the incapacity for work commenced after the dismissal form was received by the UWV. Who determines this? Not the UWV, nor the court. The company doctor is the one who determines the date on which the incapacity for work commenced and is the only one who can and may express an opinion on this. This worked out in the employer's favor. The company doctor determined that the first day of illness was May 7, 2025. Why? That is not entirely clear from the ruling, but it does correspond with the employee's sick report that evening. She wrote in her email: “I will unfortunately be unable to attend tomorrow's meeting and must call in sick.” In other words, she reported sick for the following day. Since her incapacity for work only began after the A form had been submitted, the prohibition on termination did not apply.

The reorganization was sufficiently substantiated by Crocs, the employment contract was terminated, and the employee only received the transition allowance. The requested fair compensation of more than €555,000.00 was not granted.

It is important for employers to remember that dismissal is not necessarily futile if an employee reports sick (for a longer period) on the same day that the dismissal application is submitted.

Have a company doctor determine the first day of incapacity for work. A difference of five hours can make the difference between a rejection and a termination.

You can read the ruling here.

Last weekend was all about the 47th British Open & 15th Cup of Europe for Dave Kientz, a highly competitive and beautifully organized international tournament.

Our sponsored karateka Dave Kientz was back in action here. He had a bye in the preliminary round, which meant his first match was immediately against a Polish opponent. He managed to end this match early and convincingly qualified for the semi-finals.

There, Dave once again faced the current world champion. Although he has faced him many times before, victory proved just out of reach this time too. After an intense 3.5-minute fight, he had to acknowledge his superiority to his strong British opponent.

The weekend ended with a fine third place in this European Cup, a result to be proud of!

We congratulate Dave on this achievement and wish him every success in his preparations for the World Championships in Japan on November 22 and 23. We are proud to sponsor him and support his sporting ambitions.

Bad news for employers: processing times at the UWV are increasing even further. The good news is that if the 104-week waiting period is (almost) over and recovery is not expected within 26 weeks, you can submit the application for dismissal due to long-term incapacity for work without first waiting for the RIV test or the WIA decision. The UWV's Implementation Rules allow this in the event of a delay, as long as the WIA application has been submitted on time.

When is this possible?

After two years of incapacity for work, the prohibition on termination due to illness expires in principle (unless extended, for example due to a wage penalty). You can then request permission from the UWV to terminate the employment contract, provided that:

• No recovery is expected within 26 weeks, and
• Reassignment (possibly with training, within a reasonable period of time) is not possible.

When submitting your application, you must provide:

• a recent statement from the company doctor with the prognosis and work capacity. This is also referred to as the 26-week statement or current assessment;
• information about the first day of illness and the course of the illness/employability;
• an overview of reintegration activities (track 1 and/or track 2);
• a chronological report (employer or company doctor). This can be evidenced by the reintegration report (RIV), occupational expert reports, or expert opinions; and furthermore;
• a copy of the employment contract, the job description, and documents supporting the redeployment efforts.

Pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

• Submitting too early: permission can only be granted once the notice period has expired (or will expire within four weeks of the decision). So plan to submit your application just before the end of the 104 weeks, e.g. in week 99.  
• Forgetting the notice period: the UWV's processing time is deducted from the notice period, but at least one month must remain. The obligation to continue paying wages expires after 104 weeks, so in principle no wages need to be paid during the notice period.
• Late WIA application by employee: the obligation to continue paying wages and the prohibition on termination are extended by the number of days late (and the UWV may refuse the application for dismissal).

What if reintegration was insufficient after all?

Even then, the dismissal application is still possible if the WIA application was submitted on time and there was only a delay at the UWV. The prohibition on termination will not be extended and you do not have to wait for the decision on the WIA. After the waiting period has expired, no wage penalty can be imposed. Please note: an employee can claim administrative damages from the UWV if it subsequently transpires that a wage penalty was wrongly not imposed. This does not affect the dismissal permit that has been granted, but it does underline the importance of a complete and carefully compiled file.

Conclusion

As you can see, the best option is still to conclude a settlement agreement with your employee, because the route via the UWV clearly takes time and therefore money. However, if that is not possible, you do not have to wait for the dismissal application in the event of a UWV delay, provided your file is in order. Do you have any questions or would you like a quick file check (26-week forecast, redeployment, notice period)? Please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, or Elke Hofman-Bijvank; we will be happy to assist you in a practical and timely manner. 

In its ruling of October 8, 2025, the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State was confronted with a remarkable situation: a municipality and municipal council that appealed against a remedial decision taken by the council itself.

What was at stake in this case? In an interim ruling, the Division had instructed the council of the municipality of Oss to remedy deficiencies in a zoning plan. Following the interim ruling, the council took a remedial decision and thereby amended the zoning plan. Subsequently, both the council and the municipality of Oss lodged an appeal against that remedial decision and refused to withdraw it.

The question that the Division now had to answer was whether the council could appeal against its own remedial decision and whether the municipality could lodge an appeal against the remedial decision of its own municipal council. The Division ruled that it could not. The purpose of allowing appeals is to offer interested parties legal remedies against government actions, not to give the council the opportunity to undo its own corrective decision. In addition, the Division ruled that the municipality could not appeal against the corrective decision either, because it had not been demonstrated that the municipality's interests were directly affected by the corrective decision.

This is an important ruling, because the Division has emphasized that the judiciary cannot be burdened with tasks, in this case the annulment of a recovery decision, that should be carried out by administrative bodies themselves.

You can read the ruling here.