In a recent ruling, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal addressed whether a hiring freeze releases an employer from the legal obligation to reassign an employee whose position is being eliminated within the employer\u2019s company.<\/p>\n
Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n The employee in question worked for an international petrochemical company. After the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) denied permission for dismissal, the employment contract was still terminated by the subdistrict court due to economic reasons. The employee disagreed and appealed the decision, arguing that his position had not been eliminated and that the employer had not made sufficient efforts to reassign him within the company. He requested either the reinstatement of his employment or financial compensation.<\/p>\n Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n The Court of Appeal concluded that the employment contract was wrongly terminated because the employer had not fulfilled its reassignment obligations. As a result, the Court did not need to assess whether the employee\u2019s position had actually been eliminated. The employee was awarded fair compensation of \u20ac109,723.27 gross<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Hiring Freeze Not a Valid Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n The employer argued that there was a hiring freeze in place, making reassignment impossible. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the employee already had an indefinite employment contract. Reassignment is mandatory if a suitable position is available, even during a hiring freeze, according to the Court. A hiring freeze applies only to new hires, not to existing employees who need to be reassigned.<\/p>\n Lack of Active Reassignment Efforts<\/strong><\/p>\n The Court identified several shortcomings in the employer\u2019s efforts to reassign the employee:.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n