8 Sep 2025 Can an employer refuse reintegration into the employee's own position?

When an employee is absent due to illness, strict reintegration obligations apply to both the employee and the employer. The legislator's objective is clear: the employee must return to work as quickly and sustainably as possible. The starting point is always a return to the employee's own, agreed work. Only when this is no longer possible for medical or structural reasons may suitable work within or outside the organisation be considered. In a recent ruling by the Court of Appeal in The Hague, an employer was reprimanded for refusing to allow an employee to return to her own job.

Facts and history

The employee in question was absent due to illness. An action plan was then drawn up. It explicitly stated that reintegration into her own position was the starting point. However, despite the company doctor indicating that it was possible for her to resume work in that position, the employer maintained its position that it would be inefficient to reintegrate the employee into her own position because a replacement had already been hired.

The employee was offered an alternative position, but subsequently requested an expert assessment from the UWV. The UWV ruled that the employer had failed to fulfil its obligations and that the employer should have allowed the employee to resume her own work. The employer disregarded this opinion and maintained its position. This seriously damaged the working relationship and the employee reported sick again, this time with psychological complaints.

After a two-year waiting period, the UWV terminated the employment contract at the employer's request due to long-term incapacity for work.

Judgment of the Court

The court ruled entirely in favour of the employee. According to the court, the basic principle is that the employee must be able to resume his or her own job as soon as this is medically justified. The employer's invocation of efficiency considerations does not constitute valid grounds for deviating from this legal principle.

Furthermore, the action plan stipulated that the goal was for the employee to return to her own position. By ignoring this and also disregarding an expert opinion from the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV), the employer seriously violated its reintegration obligations, according to the court.

The court emphasised that the employer had made no attempt whatsoever to repair the strained working relationship. On the contrary, it maintained its incorrect position, causing the employee to drop out again. According to the court, this constituted seriously culpable conduct. The employer was therefore ordered to pay fair compensation of €30,000, in addition to the statutory transition payment.

You can read the ruling here .

Legal significance and practical implications

This ruling confirms once again that the bar is set high for employers. Hiring a replacement or citing efficiency arguments is not sufficient grounds for preventing an employee from returning to their own job. The law and established case law make it clear that resumption of work in the agreed position is and remains the starting point and that this cannot be deviated from without good reason.

Furthermore, ignoring an UWV expert opinion and failing to make serious efforts to restore the employment relationship may be regarded by the court as seriously culpable conduct. This may result in the award of substantial fair compensation.

Conclusion

With this ruling, the Court of Appeal in The Hague has made it clear that an employer who refuses to reinstate an employee in their own position without valid reason runs the risk of this being considered seriously culpable conduct. This can lead to significant financial consequences in the form of fair compensation, in addition to the statutory obligations. The employment lawyers at SPEE advocaten & mediation closely follow case law and legislation concerning reintegration, UWV procedures and fair compensation.

Do you, as an employer or employee, have questions about reintegration obligations, an expert opinion from the UWV or an (impending) labour dispute? Our experienced team at SPEE advocaten & mediation is ready to assist you with practical advice and legal assistance. Please feel free to contact us.

SPEE advocaten & mediation Maastricht