Category: Weblog

On 18 July 2025, the Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1171) ruled for the first time on the so-called i-ground for dismissal (Section 7:669(3)(i) of the Dutch Civil Code). This ground makes it possible to terminate an employment contract based on a combination of several partially present grounds for dismissal. The ruling provides clarity on how this cumulative ground should be applied in practice.

The “i-ground”

The “i-ground” was introduced in 2020 with the Balanced Labour Market Act (WAB). The i-ground means there may be reasonable grounds for dismissal if several grounds for dismissal are partially present. This is without any one being sufficient on its own. It involves a combination of grounds like poor performance (d-ground), culpable conduct (e-ground), and a disrupted employment relationship (g-ground). Although none are sufficient on their own, they may collectively be sufficient grounds for dismissal.

When applying the i-ground, the court may award additional compensation: the so-called cumulative compensation (Section 7:671b(8) of the Dutch Civil Code). This amounts to a maximum of 50% of the transition payment. Moreover, it compensates for the fact that dismissal is based on a combination of several “near-grounds”.

The case: employee at Profoto

The case concerned an employee working at Profoto as an image processing developer since 2018. During a stay in Iran, he worked remotely without permission. Additionally, he took an expensive camera belonging to the company without consulting anyone. When his employer asked him to return to the Netherlands (even offering a plane ticket), he refused.

He later reported sick with burnout symptoms, but failed to provide convincing medical evidence. He also failed to attend an important meeting on 30 January 2023, despite repeated requests from his employer. This ultimately led to his summary dismissal.

The court’s ruling

The court ruled that the employee’s behaviour was not so reprehensible as to constitute grounds for dismissal. This was because there were previous instances within the company of employees taking equipment without formal permission or working remotely. Furthermore, the employment relationship had not yet been disrupted to such an extent that restoration was impossible.

There was still room for a constructive discussion. Nevertheless, the court ruled that the combination of some culpability and a partially disrupted employment relationship was sufficient grounds for dismissal on the i-ground. Accordingly, the employment contract was terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of careful substantiation. If a court applies the i-ground, it must clearly indicate the grounds on which the combination of grounds is based.

In this case, the court of appeal had ruled there was a combination of culpable conduct and a partially disrupted employment relationship. However, at the same time, it found there was no culpable conduct within the meaning of the “e” ground. In doing so, the court of appeal failed to sufficiently demonstrate what the culpable conduct did consist of. This, according to the Supreme Court, is insufficient substantiation for applying the i-ground.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court confirmed that even when applying the i-ground, the employer’s obligation to redeploy must be examined. The court must assess whether the employer has done enough to redeploy the employee within the company before it can proceed with termination.

An important aspect of the ruling is that the court may also apply the i-ground and associated cumulative compensation ex officio. Therefore, the employee does not have to explicitly request this. If the court of appeal wishes to apply the i-ground after the subdistrict court has previously rejected the request for termination, the employer must be given the opportunity to withdraw that request. In that case, the employee remains in service.

A similar situation arises when the subdistrict court has terminated the employment contract on other grounds and the court of appeal subsequently rules that only the i-ground with cumulative compensation is appropriate. Thus, the employer must be given the opportunity to withdraw the request. If it fails to do so, the court of appeal may proceed to reinstate the employment contract. Alternatively, it may award fair compensation to the employee on the basis of Section 7:683(3) of the Dutch Civil Code.

Conclusion

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has outlined clear guidelines for the application of the i-ground. A solid substantiation remains essential, even in cases involving a combination of circumstances.

Do you have questions about dismissal and the cumulative ground? We are happy to assist you.

The summer of 2025 brings important employment law changes that affect both employers and employees. From the 1st of July 2025, new rules and perceptions will apply that may affect terms and conditions of employment, personnel policies and payroll.

Since these changes have already taken effect, we have listed the main points of interest for you. This way, you as an employer can check whether everything has been implemented correctly, and employees can see how their situation is affected.

Do you have any questions or doubts about how the new rules apply and what this means for you in practice? Feel free to contact us — we are happy to help you find the best approach.

Expired statutory holidays from 2024

From the 1st of July 2025, statutory holidays accrued in 2024 will expire (Want to know more about expired holidays? Then read the following blog: Expired holidays (?) – Wieringa Advocaten). For this to apply, the employee must have been aware of the outstanding balance, had the opportunity to take the holidays, and known that the days would expire as of 1 July 2025 if not used. As an employer, it is therefore important to keep accurate records of employees’ holiday balances and to inform them in a timely manner.

Increase in legal minimum wage from 1 July 2025

From the 1st of July 2025, the gross minimum hourly wage will go up from €14.06 to €14.40. Employees under the age of 21 will also receive a higher minimum wage (Amounts minimum wage 2025 | Minimum wage | Rijksoverheid.nl). Employers are obliged to adjust salaries on time. Late payment can lead to legal and financial risks – so be on time with this.

Collective wage increases: what does it mean for you?

Many collective agreements provide for wage increases starting from 1 July. Does your industry have a collective agreement? If so, employers will likely need to raise wages. Keep in mind that late payments can have legal and financial consequences, so please stay alert. (Want to know more about collective agreements? Then read the following blog: Labour law in NL: Collective bargaining agreements (CAOs) – Wieringa Advocaten).

Reporting work-related mobility

Employers with 100 or more employees have been required to report on their staff’s commuting and business travel since the 1st of July 2024. (Want to know more about the reporting obligation? Then read the following blog: CO2 reporting employee travel mandatory from July 2024). This involves recording how employees travel (bicycle, car, public transport) and how many kilometres are travelled per mode of transport. These data had to be submitted to RVO.nl by the end of June 2025. Enforcement can take place from the 1st of July 2025.

Extension of scheme for victims of occupational diseases

From the 1st of July 2025, the TSB (Substance-Related Occupational Disease Benefit) scheme will be further expanded. Workers who have fallen ill due to exposure to certain hazardous substances can receive a one-time financial allowance from the government through this scheme. This allowance compensates for the loss of healthy life years and will amount to €25,679 in 2025.

If an employee has also received compensation from their employer or client, this amount will be deducted from the allowance.

While the scheme previously covered lung cancer from asbestos (mesothelioma), among others, three new occupational diseases will be added from the 1st of July 2025:

• Silica lung cancer caused by inhalation of respirable crystalline silica;
• Silicosis, an incurable lung disease due to inflammatory reactions after exposure to silica;
• Nasal and sinus cancer due to wood dust, caused by inhalation of wood dust, for example during woodworking.

Many employment contracts contain a study costs clause. In this blog, we will discuss mandatory education and the conditions for a valid study costs clause. We will also discuss a recent case in which the court ruled that the employer had not made it sufficiently clear to the employee what the consequences would be if the employee had to pay the study costs.

Mandatory education

The law on study cost clauses was amended on 1 August 2022. Pursuant to Section 7:611a of the Dutch Civil Code, an employer must offer mandatory education without any costs. This applies if the training is necessary for the performance of the work or for the continuation of the employment contract. In addition, training that is mandatory under a law or collective labour agreement must also be offered free of charge. A study costs clause is not valid for compulsory study costs.

However, it is not always clear in all cases when training is mandatory. This regularly leads to legal proceedings. For instance, the Rotterdam Subdistrict Court (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:8929) ruled that a course in German language and regulations was not compulsory training for a combination machine operator. In another case, the court ruled (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:6859) that the SVH Social Hygiene training course was compulsory for an apprentice chef.

Conditions for a valid study costs clause

If the training is not mandatory, the parties are free to agree on a study costs clause. The study costs clause is not specifically regulated by law. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled on the reimbursement of study costs in its judgment of 10 June 1983 (Muller/Van Opzeeland). A study costs clause is valid if the following conditions are met:

1. It is clear how long the employer will benefit from the knowledge and skills acquired during the study programme.
2. It has been agreed that the salary for the study period must be reimbursed if the employment relationship ends during or immediately after the study period.
3. The reimbursement obligation is reduced proportionally during the period referred to in 1.

If these conditions are not met, the study costs clause is not valid and the employee does not have to repay the study costs.

Insight into the consequences of repaying study costs

In a recent case (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:2796), the subdistrict court had to rule on whether an account manager had to repay the costs of courses he had taken. The employee terminated his contract shortly after completing a two-day course in basic hydraulics. The employee believed that the course had been “more or less” forced upon him. The court found that this did not mean that the course was necessary. Therefore, Article 7:611a of the Dutch Civil Code did not apply.

Because the course was not part of mandatory training, the parties were free to agree on a study costs clause. However, the study costs clause could not be invoked in this case. The employer had not made clear in advance what the costs of this course would be and what the consequences would be if the employee left. The employer could not refer to a general provision in the employment contract. The employment contract did not specify which courses were covered by this provision and what costs were involved. In other words, the employer should therefore have explained the financial consequences of this provision more clearly. Because this had not been done, the employer was not entitled to offset the study costs. If the employer had done so, the course could possibly have been offset.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important to know when a study costs clause is valid. Since 1 August 2022, reimbursement is not permitted for mandatory education. Strict conditions apply to non-mandatory education.

Do you have any questions about the study costs clause? We would be happy to help you.

An ergonomically designed workplace, regular medical inventories, an office gym, chair massage and a “Great Place to Work” certificate. On paper, this employer seemed to have everything nicely in order. After all, the certificate underscores a focus on being a good employer and a healthyworkingenvironment. Yet the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the employer was liable for the occurrence of RSI complaints in one of its employees.

Duty of care goes further

Can an employer be liable for RSI complaints (pain in hands, wrists, arms and shoulders, among others, due to repetitive, prolonged or unnatural movements) in a high-risk employee, even if the workplace meets ARBO standards? Yes. Compliance with those standards is not enough. The employer must ensure compliance with instructions and the proper design of the workplace, tailored to the employee. A concrete example of this can be seen in the case study below.

From workplace to courtroom

The employee in question had been employed since 1 July 2009 and most recently worked as a senior reporting & control specialist. He claimed that he had developed RSI complaints during his work. According to experts, the complaints were caused by prolonged screen work exceeding standards, high work pressure, inadequate rest, and poor posture, especially in the neck and shoulders.

In the first instance (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:2666, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:4197 and ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2023:1043), the subdistrict court ruled that the employee had made it sufficiently plausible that he had suffered (health) damage as a result of RSI complaints, and that these complaints had arisen during the performance of his work. The subdistrict court also ruled that the employer had not fulfilled its duty of care to prevent the health damage.

The employer appealed this ruling(ECLI:NL:GHARL:2025:281).

According to the employer, everything was in order

The employer argued that the employee had a lot of freedom in his work, the atmosphere was good, there was no structural overwork, he took daily breaks, hardly worked overtime and took regular holidays. According to the employer, this evidence showed that the complaints were not work-related.

In addition, the employer argued that they had fulfilled its obligations under Section 7:658 of the Civil Code. Under this article, an employer is obliged to ensure a safe working environment, including an ergonomically designed workplace. The employer must take the necessary measures, issue instructions and monitor compliance. According to the employer, this duty of care was met: the workstations were periodically medically assessed for ergonomic quality. Before reporting sick, the employee knew the ideal settings and could have supervised the correct application himself.

In addition, the employer highlighted its participation in the “Best Workplaces in the Netherlands” programme and its certification as a “Great Place to Work”. Employees could use a gym, table football and chair massage.

Duty of care requires customisation

The court disagreed with the employer. According to the court, the employer’s arguments do not change the expert’s conclusion that the RSI complaints arose during work. The RSI complaints were the result of exposure to screen work exceeding the applicable standards in the Working Conditions Decree , a high perceived work pressure, insufficient rest periods and a neck and shoulder region that was insufficiently relaxed due to the work posture. According to the court, it is plausible that the RSI complaints arose during the employee’s work.

In addition, the court held that the employer had not fulfilled its duty of care under Section 7:658 of the Civil Code. The court of appeal found that the employer did not dispute that the employee – given his limitations and the nature of his work – ran an increased risk of developing RSI complaints. Nor was it disputed that the employer had to take specific measures for this employee. Nor did it appear that the employer alternated work at a monitor with other work or rest time. As required under Article 5.10 of the Working Conditions Decree.

Moreover, the employer knew that the employee had a congenital disability and that it was difficult for him to leave his workplace to take rest periods. The court ruled that the employer had to ensure the workplace was properly set up and sufficient rest was taken. According to the court, the chair massage and fitness facilities for this employee were not targeted measures to prevent RSI complaints. This is especially true as the employee repeatedly stated that chair massage and fitness are not accessible or effective for him due to his limitations.

The court rejected the employer’s defence that the employee himself could have indicated what he needed and that he ‘did not want to be treated differently from colleagues’. According to the court, the employer must set the workplace correctly and ensure sufficient rest moments for the employee. Even if an employee indicates he does not want to be treated differently from colleagues, the duty of care remains undiminished.

What insights does this case offer for employers?

This ruling underlines once again: the duty of care is not a one-size-fits-all concept. A well-equipped workplace and general facilities are important, but not always sufficient. When there is an increased risk of health complaints, the employer must do more than just take general measures. In this case, that meant: specific measures tailored to the employee.

Do you have questions about your duty of care as an employer or about reducing health risks within your organisation? Feel free to contact us. We will be happy to think with you about how to limit your risks.

An employee is entitled to continued payment of wages during the first two years of illness (104 weeks). During this period, the employee and employer must make efforts towards reintegration. When an employee does not fulfil his reintegration obligations, an employer can impose a wage sanction. Non-compliance with the reintegration obligations occurs, for example, if the employee cannot be reached, does not show up at the company doctor’s office, does not cooperate in drawing up the action plan or refuses to perform suitable work.

If an employee does not comply with his reintegration obligations, an employer must take various legal steps, depending on the (manner of) violation of the reintegration obligations. This blog discusses the different possibilities for an employer to proceed with a wage sanction. If an employee does not fulfil his reintegration obligations after this, this may even ultimately lead to dismissal.

Official warning

An official warning can be used to send a first signal to the employee. This concerns situations when a violation of the reintegration obligation is not (yet) evident, justifying a suspension or stop in pay. The written warning states the facts that (possibly) indicate a violation of the reintegration obligation. An employer may state in the warning that a wage suspension or wage freeze will be applied in case of repetition. An official warning may be given before a wage suspension or wage freeze, but this is not mandatory.

Suspension of wages

Under Article 7:629(6) of the Civil Code, the employer may suspend the employer’s wages if the employee violates written control regulations. These control rules allow the employer to check whether the employee is actually sick. Consider the situation where an employee fails to show up at the appointment with the company doctor or if the employee is unreachable for the employer and the company doctor. An employee must inform the employer at what times he is hard to reach due to a medical appointment, for example, so that the employer can take this into account.

The salary suspension is intended as a means of pressure. Once the employee still complies with the monitoring requirements, he is entitled to continued wage payment for the period that wages were suspended. There is thus a right to retroactive wage payment.

Wage stop

Article 7:629(3) of the Civil Code lists six cases in which the employer can stop the employee’s wages. Some examples are: deliberately causing the illness, hindering or delaying recovery, refusing to perform suitable work and refusing to cooperate with reasonable reintegration instructions. A wage freeze can also be applied without first imposing wage suspension.

The moment an employee fully meets his reintegration obligations again, the wage freeze must be lifted immediately. The part of the salary that has not been paid does not have to be repaid. This differs from wage suspension, where wages are temporarily suspended.

But first: the duty to warn

Under Article 7:629(7) of the Civil Code, the employer has a duty to warn. This means that an employer is obliged to inform the employee of the reason for the wage freeze or wage suspension within a reasonable period of time. An employer must make it clear that it is a wage freeze or wage suspension. An employee must have clarity about his right to pay as soon as possible so that he can take timely action. If the employer fails to fulfil this warning obligation, there is a risk that the employee may still be entitled to the withheld wages.

Termination or summary dismissal?

Violation of reintegration obligations may lead to termination of the employment contract due to culpable acts or omissions (the e-ground). It follows from case law that dissolution is only possible if the employer has given written notice to comply with the reintegration obligations. Also, an employer must first have tried other sanctions, such as suspension of salary or a wage freeze. It also follows from case law that a request for a termination must be rejected if an expert’s statement is missing, unless the submission of this statement cannot reasonably be required of the employer. Only if these conditions are met does the prohibition on giving notice during illness lapse and the employment contract can be dissolved.

A summary dismissal for violation of the reintegration obligations is less likely. In a recent case before the Court of The Hague, the court upheld the prevailing doctrine that summary dismissal is an ultimum remedium. This means that lesser measures, such as a wage sanction or dissolution of the employment contract, should be imposed first. A summary dismissal is often only possible if there are additional special circumstances. Think, for instance, of an employee who repeatedly fails to comply with his monitoring instructions, neglects agreements made and is unavailable to the employer for a long period of time.

Conclusion

It is good to keep in mind the different wage sanctions when an employee does not comply with his reintegration obligation. We regularly deal with cases in which wage sanctions are imposed. Do not hesitate to contact us. We will be happy to think along with you about the right wage sanction.