{"id":837,"date":"2025-05-27T11:03:13","date_gmt":"2025-05-27T09:03:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/littler.nl\/werk-niet-meer-aanbieden-is-niet-hetzelfde-als-ontslag\/"},"modified":"2025-11-05T11:18:45","modified_gmt":"2025-11-05T10:18:45","slug":"no-longer-offering-work-is-not-dismissal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/littler.nl\/en\/nieuws\/no-longer-offering-work-is-not-dismissal\/","title":{"rendered":"No longer offering work is not dismissal"},"content":{"rendered":"

The hospitality industry often employs flexible staff such as dishwashers, cleaners and kitchen helpers. Called in during busy periods, such employees work less during quiet periods. This is allowed, provided it is done within the statutory framework, the Collective Labor Agreement for the hotel, restaurant and caf\u00e9 industry (Horeca-cao<\/em>) and any arrangements made in the employment contract.<\/p>\n

But what happens if an employee on a fixed-term employment contract is no longer called in, for example, because an assignment is cancelled or there is an employment dispute, even though the contract is still ongoing and there has been no formal termination?<\/p>\n

Such a situation was the subject of a recent court case<\/a>. The employer unexpectedly stopped offering work to a cleaner, even though his employment contract was still in force. The court held that what the employer may have seen as a practical solution was a case of wrongful termination of employment, which had financial consequences for the employer.<\/p>\n

The situation
\n<\/strong>The employee was employed as a cleaner under a fixed-term employment contract. About two months before his contract was due to expire by operation of law, he was no longer called in to work. He understood this to be a summary dismissal and took his case to the Subdistrict Court, asking for his dismissal to be set aside and continued payment of his wages.<\/p>\n

The employer argued that the company’s sole client had terminated their cooperation, leaving no work or income to keep him or its other employees employed.<\/p>\n

The judge’s findings
\n<\/strong>The judge held that no formal notice of summary dismissal had been given, but that the employee was simply no longer being called in to work, which had to be equated to “termination” (for a reason other than urgent cause) of a fixed-term contract that did not include an early termination clause. The judge held this to be wrongful termination of employment.<\/p>\n

Because the employer had not requested permission from the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) to dismiss the employee for commercial reasons and had not submitted an application for termination to the Subdistrict Court, the termination was wrongful. Therefore, the employment contract had not been validly terminated and the employer’s “notice of termination” was set aside.<\/p>\n

Financial consequences
\n<\/strong>The judge ruled that the employee was entitled to wages from the time he was no longer offered work up to the date that the employment contract ended by operation of law, amounting to about two months’ wages.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the employer was ordered to pay a 15% statutory increase due to late payment of wages, plus statutory interest. The court also awarded a transition payment, which in principle is legally required when an employment contract is terminated on the employer’s initiative. In addition, the employer was ordered to reimburse all legal costs.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Practical tips<\/strong><\/p>\n