In a case before the North Holland District Court, the central question was whether an employer acted reasonably in his approach to the reintegration of an employee on sick leave.

The case in brief

In the present case, an employer summarily dismissed an employee (after warnings and a wage freeze) following a discussion that arose between the two regarding the employee's frequent absenteeism due to illness and her reintegration. The employer takes the position that he has been flexible towards the employee and has tried to reduce the absenteeism, but that this has not led to any results. During her reintegration, the employee followed a training programme in Poland, in violation of her reintegration obligations. Despite warnings from the employer and the wage sanctions applied, the employee did not stop this training. The employer therefore found it necessary to dismiss her on the spot. This dismissal was later withdrawn. However, a discussion remained between the parties as to whether the employer should still pay the wages for the period of the wage stop.

Court's ruling

The crux of this case concerned the question of whether the employer had provided reasonable instructions to promote the reintegration of the employee. This is important for the assessment of the wage claim and the request to terminate the employment contract.

During the hearing, the employer admitted that he had adopted a stricter stance after he had formed the impression that the employee had called in sick because her requests for leave for the training she was following in Poland had not been approved. The subdistrict court understands the employer's frustration, but is of the opinion that the employer acted too energetically with his strict approach and thus put too much pressure on the employee.

The subdistrict court attaches great weight to the fact that the employer put too much pressure on the employee after she called in sick due to a psychological breakdown. After all, the employer immediately proceeded to issue an official warning. The parties agreed on a reintegration plan at some point. When the employee subsequently called in sick again, she received another official warning and was threatened with a wage freeze. The employee was seen at a given moment by a company doctor, who found her unfit for her own work and advised to call in a mediator. However, the employer refused to cooperate. Given the circumstances of the case, according to the subdistrict court, it cannot be said that the instructions were reasonable, and therefore it cannot be said that the employee wrongfully failed to follow them.

In view of the above, the subdistrict court is of the opinion that the wage freeze was imposed wrongfully. That the employee, as she herself has acknowledged, made a few mistakes by not cancelling appointments or cancelling them too late and by sometimes being difficult to reach is insufficient for a full-fledged e-ground, certainly in view of the employer's actions. However, the employment contract can be dissolved on the grounds of the g-ground, now that the cooperation between the parties is no longer fruitful and there is no longer any mutual trust. The fact that the employee is ill does not stand in the way of dissolution. The disruption of the employment relationship is the result of the employer's actions in relation to the illness, so that there is sufficient distance with regard to the dissolution.

Read the full judgment here.

Conclusion

As the above ruling shows, it is important that employers act carefully in cases of illness and reintegration and give reasonable and feasible instructions to their employees. It is also important that employers show a certain degree of understanding for the situation their employee finds themselves in. It is also important to consider alternative solutions such as mediation to resolve conflicts and find a lasting solution. Questions about labour law? SPEE advocaten & mediation can help.