This week, we are writing about a court ruling that touches on the issue of reassignment during reorganisations. A branch is closing, but the employer offers a different suitable post within the same group. The employee accepts the offer, signs a new employment contract with a sister company and then resigns of his own accord. Is he therefore entitled to a transition payment? The subdistrict court judge at the District Court of North Holland answered that question in the negative on 13 May 2026.
What were the facts of this case?
An employee had been employed since 24 June 2013 as a foreman at Sortiva Recycling B.V., part of the Sortiva group, at the branch in Heerhugowaard. On 10 October 2025, Sortiva Recycling announced that this branch would close for organisational reasons. The company stated that it wished to retain all staff and would seek redeployment opportunities.
As the foreman role was not available elsewhere, the employee was offered two suitable positions as a machine operator at the sites in Alkmaar and Vijfhuizen, both at a lower pay scale but with a phased-out arrangement in accordance with the Collective Labour Agreement for Professional Goods Transport. Following several discussions, the employee opted for the post in Vijfhuizen. As that site fell under the legal jurisdiction of a different operating company (Sortiva B.V.), the employee signed a new employment contract with that company with effect from 1 December 2025. His length of service and terms and conditions of employment were transferred accordingly.
On 19 November 2025, the employee started in his new role. The following day, he reported sick. On 25 November 2025, he terminated his employment contract with Sortiva B.V. with effect from 1 January 2026 and, at the same time, reported that he had recovered. He did not work again until the end of the employment contract.
As an employee who resigns of their own accord is not normally entitled to a transition payment, he did not base his claim on that resignation. Instead, he asked the subdistrict court to award a transition payment of €22,498.30 on the grounds that his original employment contract as a foreman would have ended on 1 December 2025 at the initiative of Sortiva Recycling – that is, before he himself gave notice to Sortiva B.V.
The subdistrict court’s considerations and ruling
The subdistrict court first held that an employer is only liable to pay a transition payment if the employment contract was terminated on the employer’s initiative. Before an employer may proceed to do so, it must first investigate whether redeployment is possible – not only within its own company, but, in the case of a group of companies, also at other companies within the group.
At the hearing, the employee acknowledged that Sortiva Recycling had not formally terminated the employment contract and that it had not been dissolved at his request either. He nevertheless argued that the employment contract should be deemed to have been terminated on the initiative of Sortiva Recycling, since a new employment contract had, after all, been concluded with another private limited company. The subdistrict court judge did not accept this line of reasoning.
Sortiva Recycling – in fulfilment of its obligation to redeploy the employee – offered suitable posts, and the employee accepted one of them. The redeployment was therefore successful, thereby preventing the termination of the employment contract. The fact that the position offered was with another operating company and that a new employment contract was drawn up for it does not alter this: an employer is, after all, obliged to also consider positions at other companies within the group when redeploying staff. It is logical that a new contract was drawn up, as the Vijfhuizen site falls under a different legal entity and the collective labour agreement requires further arrangements regarding salary. Furthermore, the fact that Sortiva B.V. also took over the years of service and terms and conditions of employment is consistent with the continuation of the employment contract rather than its termination.
As there was no question of termination on the employer’s initiative, the employee is, in principle, not entitled to a transition payment. After all, redeployment to a suitable post cannot be equated with a (partial) termination of the employment contract. An exception applies only if the redeployment involves a substantial reduction in working hours of more than 20 per cent. This was not the case here: the new post involved the same working hours as the old one. The fact that the post fell within a lower pay scale – even though the loss of income was initially compensated – does not, either, give rise to an entitlement to a (partial) transition payment.
Finally, it was not in dispute that the employee had subsequently terminated the continued employment contract of his own accord. As there had been no prior termination on the initiative of Sortiva Recycling, the employee could not, on that ground, subsequently claim a transition payment: after all, his own termination does not, in itself, entitle him to such a payment. The claim is dismissed and the employee is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Read the full judgment here.
What does this mean in practice?
This ruling makes it clear that a successful redeployment within a group of companies does not give rise to an entitlement to a transition payment, even if that redeployment involves a new employment contract with another company, a lower-level position or a lower salary. The decisive factor is whether the termination of the employment contract took place on the employer’s initiative. If redeployment is successful, this is not the case.
For employers, this provides clarity: those who actively seek redeployment opportunities during a reorganisation or site closure – including at sister companies within the group – and who also offer such opportunities, can avoid becoming liable to pay a transition payment. It is important, however, that the employee’s length of service and terms and conditions of employment are respected and that the redeployment does not result in a reduction in working hours of more than 20 per cent.
For employees, accepting a redeployment offer – even if it is in a lower-level role or with another company – generally means that they are not entitled to a transition payment. Anyone who is unsure whether an offered role can be regarded as suitable, or what the consequences of acceptance or refusal might be, would be well advised to seek legal advice in advance.
Do you, as an employer or employee, have any questions regarding the classification of a collaborative working relationship, bogus self-employment, the (partial) termination of an employment contract, the calculation of the transition payment, or your rights and obligations in this context? Please feel free to contact the employment lawyers at SPEE advocaten & mediation. We would be happy to discuss this with you.
Diederick Luijckx, LLM, lawyer