Citing illness does not automatically exempt an employee from their reintegration obligations. On 20 May 2026, the subdistrict court judge at the Rotterdam District Court ruled that, in this case, the employer was entitled to suspend payment of wages because the employee had failed to cooperate sufficiently with the reintegration programme recommended by the company doctor, including attending regular meetings. In addition, the court had to assess whether withholding relevant information breached the duty of truthfulness under Article 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and what consequences might be attached to this.
What was the situation in this case?
The case concerned a dispute between a CFO and his employer. The employee had been employed as CFO since 3 January 2022 and reported sick on 31 October 2025. Following an assessment by the company doctor on 4 December 2025, rest was advised, as well as maintaining contact with the employer and planning a handover of his duties.
Following this advice, the employer invited the employee to an (online) meeting on 11 December 2025 to discuss the handover of duties. The employee stated that he was unable to attend due to his health and provided only a brief, practical handover via email. The employer considered this information insufficient and insisted on the planned meeting. After the employee failed to attend the meeting without further notice, the employer announced a suspension of pay, which took effect on 12 December 2025 and lasted until 30 January 2026 inclusive.
The employee argued that the wage freeze had been imposed unjustly and claimed, as his primary claim, continued payment of 100 per cent of his wages for the period of the wage freeze up to and including March 2026. In the alternative, he claimed continued payment of 70 per cent of his wages for the same period. In addition, he claimed the statutory increase and statutory interest on account of arrears in wage payments.
The subdistrict court judge’s considerations and ruling
The subdistrict court first ruled that there was a matter of urgency, as the employee had received no wages during the wage freeze and was dependent on them for his livelihood.
The subdistrict court judge then considered that the employee had misinterpreted the company doctor’s advice. According to the employee, a period of complete rest was required first, and only then could meetings and a handover of duties take place. The subdistrict court does not accept this interpretation. On the contrary, the company doctor’s advice clearly states that a practical handover had to be scheduled so that the employee could then focus fully on his recovery, with the recommended consultation sessions taking place during the rest period. These consultation sessions do not constitute work, but form part of the return-to-work programme.
The subdistrict court judge considered that the employee had not provided any medical justification for his refusal to take part in the online consultation on 11 December 2025. As he had not demonstrated that he was unable to do so, the subdistrict court judge ruled that he had failed to fulfil his reintegration obligations. According to the subdistrict court judge, this justifies the suspension of pay pursuant to Article 7:629(3)(d) of the Dutch Civil Code. The claim for wages is therefore dismissed in full for the period of the suspension of pay.
With regard to the amount of the wages, the subdistrict court judge then considers that the employee is not entitled to 100 per cent of his wages during incapacity for work after the first four weeks. Although the employee argued that it is customary within the company to continue paying 100 per cent of wages in the event of illness, the subdistrict court did not accept this. After all, the employment contract states that, after four weeks of incapacity for work, the employee is only entitled to 70 per cent of their wages.
Furthermore, it emerged at the hearing that the company operates with two types of employment contract: older contracts which include a provision for 100 per cent continued payment of wages, and newer contracts which explicitly stipulate that wages fall to 70 per cent after four weeks – a provision which is also set out in the staff handbook. The mere fact that some employees receive 100% under older contracts does not alter this.
With regard to the costs of the proceedings, the subdistrict court judge considered that an employee claiming wages during sick leave is, in principle, not ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. However, there is an exception to this principle in cases of manifestly unreasonable use of procedural law. According to the subdistrict court judge, this is the case here. The employee acted in breach of the duty of truthfulness under Article 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure by presenting an incomplete and biased account of the facts in the writ of summons. For instance, he failed to submit (in full) relevant email correspondence, medical information and the company doctor’s advice, even though these documents were relevant to the assessment of the dispute. The subdistrict court judge characterised this conduct as a manifestly unreasonable use of procedural law within the meaning of Article 7:629a(6) of the Dutch Civil Code. Consequently, contrary to the usual principle, the employee was ordered to pay the employer’s legal costs.
The full judgment can be read here.
What does this mean in practice?
This judgment clarifies the distinction between, on the one hand, rest during illness and, on the other, the obligations that may be expected in the context of an employee’s return to work. The subdistrict court demonstrates that even limited activities that do not place a burden on the employee, such as meetings and a practical handover, may, under certain circumstances, be regarded as reasonable return-to-work instructions.
Furthermore, it follows from the ruling that the company doctor’s advice must be interpreted with care. The fact that a company doctor advises a period of rest does not automatically mean that no reintegration obligations can exist during that period. Against this background, the ruling shows that a company doctor’s advice cannot be regarded lightly as non-binding. Employers and employees would therefore be well advised not only to follow the advice but also to carefully assess its scope.
Furthermore, the ruling shows that the amount of sick pay is, in principle, determined by the individual employment contract. An alleged company tradition or occasional practice is insufficient in this case if there is no consistent and contractually enshrined basis for it; what the parties have agreed (in writing) remains decisive.
Finally, it follows from this ruling that withholding relevant documents and presenting a one-sided account of the facts in proceedings concerning pay during sick leave can carry significant weight. Failure to produce essential correspondence and medical information may be regarded as a breach of the duty of truthfulness and may result in an order to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Do you have any questions about when a suspension of pay is unjustified or about the scope of reintegration obligations? Please feel free to contact the employment lawyers at SPEE advocaten & mediation. We would be happy to advise you.