An employee who is unable to carry out their usual duties due to illness is not automatically exempt from all forms of work. Even whilst on sick leave, an employee is obliged to cooperate with their return-to-work programme and to carry out suitable work. But what if the employee refuses to resume the work offered because they wish to await the outcome of an occupational health assessment first? May the employer suspend payment of wages in such a case?

The Sub-district Court of Rotterdam considered this matter on 1 October 2026. It follows from that judgement that an employee may not refuse to carry out suitable work without valid grounds, even where there is still uncertainty regarding the further reintegration process.

What were the facts of the case?

The employee had been working as a sales adviser at a gardening supplies company since 1 November 2025. On 19 June 2026, he reported sick due to back pain.

On 8 July 2026, the company doctor issued a report. This indicated that the employee was experiencing physical limitations, including difficulties with frequent and prolonged bending, stretching, twisting, lifting, pushing, pulling, climbing and working in the same position for long periods.

According to the company doctor, a return to his original duties would no longer be feasible in the long term. The employee had, in the meantime, been offered another job elsewhere which, in the company doctor’s view, was better suited to his medical limitations.

The company doctor strongly advised the employer to offer the employee the opportunity to accept this alternative role. If that were not possible, he recommended a vocational assessment to evaluate further reintegration options.

At the same time, the company doctor stated that, from a medical point of view, the employee was able to carry out alternative duties with immediate effect, for the entire duration of his contractual employment, provided that his limitations were taken into account.

The employer subsequently called on the employee to resume his duties in an adapted form. It was specified that he would not be required to lift heavy materials and could limit himself to advisory tasks. He would also be given sufficient opportunity to alternate between sitting, standing and walking.

However, the employee refused to resume work. He took the view that an occupational health assessment must first be carried out to determine which tasks were suitable for him.

The employer then announced a suspension of wages and ceased payment of wages with effect from 10 July 2026.

The employee subsequently terminated his employment contract himself with effect from 1 September 2026 and brought proceedings before the subdistrict court. Among other things, he claimed payment of the outstanding wages for the period from 10 July to 31 August 2026.

The subdistrict court’s ruling: the wage freeze was rightly applied

The subdistrict court found that the company doctor’s advice appeared to be contradictory in certain respects.
On the one hand, it was recommended that an occupational health assessment be carried out if the employee did not take up employment with another employer. On the other hand, the company doctor had explicitly stated that the employee could start alternative duties immediately.

The subdistrict court therefore considered it understandable that the employee had initially been confused.

However, that confusion did not justify the employee’s continued refusal to carry out the work offered.

It was significant that the case manager from the occupational health and safety service had since clarified that the employee had misinterpreted the company doctor’s advice. After all, the advice meant that he could start alternative duties immediately, taking his medical limitations into account.

Furthermore, the employer had confirmed in writing that the employee was only required to carry out adapted duties.

The employee argued that these adaptations were not realistic in practice. For example, if customers wanted to view heavy tiles, he would have to ask a colleague to lift them. He found this objectionable and potentially unfriendly towards customers.

The Subdistrict court did not accept this reasoning.

The employee had failed to provide sufficient evidence as to why the tasks offered would be unfeasible. A key factor in this was that he had not even attempted to carry out the adapted tasks.

Furthermore, according to the employment tribunal judge, the fact that he felt uncomfortable asking colleagues for help did not constitute a valid reason for refusing the work.

The subdistrict court judge therefore concluded that the employee had wrongly refused to carry out the adapted duties.

The employer had therefore been justified in suspending payment of wages from 10 July 2026.

When may an employer suspend payment of wages during sickness?

The basic principle of Article 7:629 of the Dutch Civil Code is that an employee who is unable to carry out their own duties due to illness is entitled to continued payment of wages for a maximum of 104 weeks, subject to the statutory exceptions.

This right is balanced by obligations on the part of the employee.

Article 7:660a of the Dutch Civil Code stipulates, amongst other things, that an employee who is unfit for work must cooperate with reasonable instructions and measures aimed at reintegration. In addition, they must perform suitable work which the employer provides them with the opportunity to carry out.

If an employee refuses to carry out suitable work without valid grounds, this may have consequences for their entitlement to pay.

Article 7:629(3), preamble and under (c), of the Dutch Civil Code stipulates that an employee is not entitled to pay for the period during which they, although capable of doing so, refuse to carry out suitable work without valid grounds.

The concept of suitable work is defined in Article 7:658a(4) of the Dutch Civil Code. This refers to work that is commensurate with the employee’s strengths and abilities, unless acceptance of such work cannot reasonably be expected of them for physical, mental or social reasons.

Whether the work offered is in fact suitable must always be assessed on the basis of the specific circumstances.

Factors such as the employee’s medical limitations, the nature of the work and the possibilities for adapting the work are relevant in this regard.

An employer may not, therefore, simply suspend payment of wages as soon as an employee who is unfit for work refuses to carry out work.

There must be a legal basis for suspending pay. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 7:629(7) of the Dutch Civil Code, the employer must inform the employee without delay of the suspicion that there are grounds for withholding pay.

A carefully substantiated and timely notified suspension of pay is therefore essential.

Is an employee entitled to wait for the results of an occupational health assessment?

An important aspect of this ruling is the significance of the announced occupational health assessment.

The employee took the view that he was entitled to await the outcome of this assessment before resuming his duties.

The subdistrict court judge ruled that this was not justified under the circumstances.
Although the company doctor had recommended an occupational health assessment in the event that the employee did not take up employment with another employer, this did not mean that he was entitled to refuse to resume any form of work until the outcome of that assessment was known.

After all, the company doctor had simultaneously determined that the employee was medically fit to carry out adapted duties.

Furthermore, the employer had specifically indicated which duties were being offered and how the medical limitations would be taken into account.
The employee had failed to demonstrate sufficiently that these duties were nevertheless unsuitable.

Incidentally, the ruling does not mean that an occupational health assessment is unnecessary in the context of return-to-work.

Such an assessment can, in fact, be of great importance where there is uncertainty regarding the suitability of tasks, the scope for adapting the employee’s current role, or the availability of other suitable work within or outside the organisation.

However, the mere fact that an occupational health assessment is being considered or is yet to take place does not automatically entitle an employee to refuse suitable work that has been offered.

What is the difference between a wage freeze and a suspension of wages?

In practice, the terms ‘wage freeze’ and ‘suspension of wages’ are often used interchangeably. Legally, however, there is an important difference between them.

In the case of a suspension of pay under Section 7:629(6) of the Dutch Civil Code, the employer temporarily withholds payment of wages because the employee has failed to comply with reasonable, written monitoring requirements that are necessary to establish the right to wages.

If the employee subsequently complies with these instructions and it transpires that they were entitled to wages, the suspended wages must still be paid.

The situation is different in the case of a wage freeze.

Where an employee refuses suitable work without valid grounds, the right to wages may lapse, pursuant to Article 7:629(3)(c) of the Dutch Civil Code, for the period to which the statutory ground for exclusion relates.

Resuming suitable work at a later date does not, therefore, mean that the employee automatically becomes entitled to wages for the preceding period during which they wrongfully refused to work.

It is therefore important for employers to carefully determine in advance which measure is legally applicable.
After all, an unjustified suspension of pay may lead to a claim for wages, plus statutory interest and possibly the statutory surcharge.

In the Rotterdam ruling, the sole issue under consideration was the lawfulness of a wage suspension due to the refusal to perform suitable work. The distinction from a wage withholding arises from the general statutory provisions and did not form a separate point of dispute in these proceedings.

Is an expert opinion from the UWV mandatory?

During the proceedings, the employer argued that the employee should have submitted an expert opinion from the UWV.

The subdistrict court did not accept this position.

Section 7:629a(1) of the Dutch Civil Code (BW) stipulates, as a general rule, that the court shall reject a claim for wages on grounds of illness if the employee fails to submit an expert opinion from the UWV regarding their inability to perform the agreed work or other suitable work.

However, this obligation does not apply in all proceedings.

For example, Article 7:629a(2) of the Dutch Civil Code stipulates that the expert’s statement is not required, amongst other things, where it cannot reasonably be expected of the employee to produce it.

Furthermore, the requirement does not apply in the case of a claim for interim relief.

As the employee in this case had brought his claim for wages by way of an application for interim relief, he was not required to submit an expert’s report.

The absence of such an opinion therefore did not prevent a substantive assessment of his claim for wages.

However, this ultimately did not help the employee. The subdistrict court judge ruled that the employer had been right to suspend payment of wages.

The employer was not found to be in the right on all points

Although the subdistrict court judge considered the suspension of wages to be justified, the employer was not found to be entirely in the right.
The employer had only paid the wages for the period from 1 to 9 July 2026 on 14 August 2026. The statutory surcharge and statutory interest due had also been paid in the meantime.

In addition, the employer had paid the notice compensation, plus statutory interest.

As these payments had already been made, the subdistrict court judge no longer needed to rule on them.

The employee had also claimed reimbursement of legal fees. He stated that his total legal fees amounted to €10,197.89 and requested reimbursement of €4,331.20 for out-of-court work.

The subdistrict court dismissed this separate claim.

According to the subdistrict court, the fact that the employer had paid certain amounts only after the lawyers had intervened did not automatically mean that the legal costs actually incurred had to be reimbursed.

In so far as the costs related to challenging the wage freeze, there were no grounds for this, as the wage freeze had been applied correctly.

As for the rest, the employee had failed to provide sufficient evidence of which out-of-court collection activities had been carried out and which part of the costs related to them.

However, the subdistrict court did award compensation of €703.92 for extrajudicial debt collection costs.

This compensation related to the fact that the employer had only paid the notice period compensation and the wages for the period from 1 to 9 July 2026, including the interest due and the statutory surcharge, following the intervention of the solicitors.

The employer was also ordered, insofar as this had not already been done, to pay a correct and itemised final settlement within one month of 1 September 2026.

Insofar as the final settlement had not been paid in full by 1 October 2026, statutory interest would be payable on the outstanding amount from 2 October 2026.

The claim for the statutory surcharge on the final settlement was dismissed, as there had not yet been any late payment at the time of the oral hearing.

Legal costs were apportioned, meaning each party had to bear its own legal costs.

Link to judgment.

What does this judgment mean for employers?

The judgment underlines the importance of a carefully structured and well-documented return-to-work programme.

Where an employee is unable to carry out their usual duties due to illness, the employer must investigate which adapted or other suitable duties may be possible.
In this regard, the advice of the company doctor is a key starting point.

It is advisable to record as specifically as possible which duties are offered, which medical restrictions are taken into account, and which adjustments are made.

If the company doctor’s advice is unclear or contradictory, clarification must be sought in good time.

It is also important to clearly inform the employee of their reintegration obligations and the possible consequences of refusing suitable work without valid grounds.

A suspension of pay may be a justified measure, but must not be applied as a matter of course.

The employer must be able to demonstrate that genuinely suitable work has been offered and that the employee has refused it without valid grounds.

What does this ruling mean for employees?

This ruling also contains an important warning for employees.

Incapacity for one’s own role does not automatically mean that an employee is no longer required to perform any work at all.

Where the company doctor identifies possibilities for adapted work and the employer offers such work, the employee must, in principle, cooperate.

An employee who has doubts as to whether the work offered is medically justifiable would be well advised to raise their objections in specific terms and in good time.

In doing so, they may request clarification of the company doctor’s advice. Under certain circumstances, an expert assessment from the UWV or a second opinion from another company doctor may also be appropriate.

However, requesting such an assessment does not automatically suspend the reintegration obligations.

Refusing the work offered without sufficient justification may therefore have significant financial consequences.

Conclusion

The decision of the District Court of Rotterdam of 1 October 2026 confirms that an employee may not refuse to carry out suitable work without valid grounds, even where an occupational health assessment is still being considered.

In this case, the decisive factors were that the company doctor considered a return to work in adapted duties to be medically feasible, the employer had taken the employee’s limitations into account in a concrete manner, and the employee had failed to provide sufficient justification as to why he was unable to carry out the work offered.

Another factor taken into account was that the employee had not even attempted to carry out the adapted work.

The subdistrict court therefore ruled that the employer had been justified in suspending payment of wages.

At the same time, the ruling demonstrates that a justified suspension of wages does not relieve the employer of its other obligations. Wages owed for previous periods, a notice period payment and a correct final settlement must still be paid in a timely manner.

For both employers and employees, clear communication, careful documentation of agreements and timely legal advice can prevent many problems.

Do you have questions about return-to-work, suitable work or a suspension of wages?

As an employer, are you dealing with an employee who refuses to cooperate with their return-to-work programme? Or are you an employee whose employer has suspended wage payments because, in their view, you are not cooperating sufficiently with suitable work arrangements?

The employment lawyers at SPEE advocaten & mediation advise and support both employers and employees on matters relating to incapacity for work, reintegration obligations, wage disputes and other employment law issues.

Please feel free to contact us. We would be happy to assess your specific situation and advise you on your rights, obligations and legal options.

Monique J.E. Spee, LL.B., lawyer and MfN-registered mediator