An employer may only stop the wages of a sick employee if the employee fails to meet a specific reintegration obligation listed in Article 7:629(3) of the Dutch Civil Code (BW) without a valid reason. The employer must also inform the employee of that ground without delay (Article 7:629(7) BW); a general impression that the employee is not cooperating is not enough.
The subdistrict court (kantonrechter) of the Overijssel District Court applied these rules on 13 July 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:4089). A vegetable-cutting company had wrongly stopped the wages of a sick employee and had to pay the statutory increase for late payment, a transition payment, collection costs and legal costs. For the general duties of a sick employee, see our article on reintegrare după boală.
Cuprins
When may an employer stop wages during sick leave?
During illness, Article 7:629(1) BW gives the employee the right to 70% of the wage for 104 weeks, and at least the statutory minimum wage in the first 52 weeks. Article 7:629(3) BW lists the situations in which that right lapses.
These include not performing suitable work without a valid reason (paragraph 3(c)), refusing to follow reasonable instructions aimed at suitable work (paragraph 3(d)) and refusing to cooperate in drawing up, evaluating and adjusting the action plan (plan van aanpak) (paragraph 3(e)). The sanction applies only for the time the failure lasts. Read the full text of Articolul 7:629 BW.
Why must the employer report the ground without delay?
Under Article 7:629(7) BW, the employer can no longer rely on a ground for not paying wages if it did not inform the employee without delay once it suspected, or should have suspected, that ground. This applies again whenever the employer switches to a different ground.
What happened in the Overijssel case?
The employee worked 24 hours a week on a fixed-term contract from 1 July to 31 December 2025, and reported sick on 14 July 2025. On 29 July 2025 the company doctor found limitations in pushing, pulling and lifting, but considered adapted work possible.
On 1 August 2025 the employer invited her to a meeting on site on 4 August to draw up the action plan. She said she could not travel yet and proposed a telephone or video call. The employer insisted on a physical meeting, partly so she could sign the plan. When she did not attend, the employer stopped her wages by letter of 5 August 2025.
She asked for a second opinion from another company doctor on 21 and 29 August 2025. The employer refused and referred her to the UWV. The action plan was drawn up on 3 September 2025, but the wage stop continued, now because she did not perform suitable work. On 28 October 2025 the UWV found the employer’s reintegration efforts insufficient. The employer paid the arrears on 12 December 2025.
Was the first wage stop lawful?
No. Under Article 7:660a(1)(b) BW the employee must cooperate in drawing up, evaluating and adjusting the action plan, and she had done so by proposing a video call. Signing the plan is not part of that obligation.
The employer did not explain why a video call was impossible, and the court found its attitude driven by distrust. The wage stop was therefore wrongful from the start.
Was the continued wage stop after 3 September 2025 lawful?
No. The court found the employee too passive after that date, for example in discussing working days. But the employer had not told her without delay that the wage stop now rested on a different ground, as Article 7:629(7) BW requires. It could therefore not rely on that ground.
What did the second opinion refusal mean?
Under Article 2.14d of the Working Conditions Decree (Arbeidsomstandighedenbesluit), the employer must ensure that an employee who doubts the company doctor’s advice can ask for another company doctor to be consulted. The fact that the employer itself trusted its company doctor was no valid reason to block this.
The court found this culpable, but not seriously culpable, partly because the employee had also been passive. Fair compensation (billijke vergoeding) of €6,500 under Article 7:673(9)(a) BW, which requires seriously culpable conduct after a fixed-term contract ends, was therefore refused. The claim for damages under Article 7:611 BW failed for lack of substantiated loss.
What was awarded?
The court awarded €3,144.27 as statutory increase for late payment (50% of €6,288.54, not mitigated) with statutory interest from 13 December 2025, €269.66 in transition payment with statutory interest from 1 February 2026, €729.88 in extrajudicial collection costs and €1,102 in legal costs.
Which deadlines apply to reintegration?
The Regulation on the procedure for the first and second year of sickness (Regeling procesgang eerste en tweede ziektejaar) sets the first steps. If long-term absence is expected, the employer must ask the company doctor for an assessment within six weeks of the first day of illness (Article 2(2)).
If that assessment shows that return to work can still be promoted, the employer draws up the action plan in agreement with the employee within two weeks (Article 4(1)). The plan records activities, goals and evaluation moments, and is evaluated periodically.
What can the UWV do?
Under Article 32 of the SUWI Act, the UWV gives an expert opinion (deskundigenoordeel) at the request of the employer or employee, for example on fitness for work or on whether the employee meets the obligations of Article 7:660a BW. In the Overijssel case, the UWV found on 28 October 2025 that the employer’s efforts were insufficient. An expert opinion is not binding, but carries weight in court.
Do other courts take the same line?
Yes. In summary proceedings of 21 May 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2026:5082), the Limburg District Court held that refusing a “coffee moment” with HR did not justify a wage stop, because it was not shown to be a measure aimed at suitable work. An employee who cannot travel may ask for a digital or telephone consultation with the company doctor. The court reduced the statutory increase to 20%. If reintegration fails altogether, read about cine își asumă riscul atunci când reintegrarea eșuează.
Ce ar trebui să verifici ca angajat?
- Check which ground of Article 7:629(3) BW the employer relies on, and whether it was stated in writing.
- If you cannot attend a meeting, propose an alternative such as a video call in writing.
- Cooperate in drawing up the action plan; you do not have to sign it to meet your obligation.
- Ask in writing for a second opinion from another company doctor if you doubt the advice.
- Take an active part in suitable work and discuss working days, or record why you cannot.
- Consider asking the UWV for an expert opinion if the dispute continues.
Ce ar trebui să verifici ca angajator?
- Base a wage stop on a specific ground of Article 7:629(3) BW and name it in writing.
- Inform the employee without delay whenever you change the ground for the wage stop.
- Offer a digital or telephone meeting when the employee cannot travel.
- Arrange a second opinion under Article 2.14d of the Working Conditions Decree when asked.
- Request the company doctor’s assessment within six weeks and draw up the action plan within two weeks after it.
- End the wage stop as soon as the employee meets the obligation again.
What can we do for you with a wage sanction during sick leave?
Gama de avocați angajați assist employees and employers in sickness and reintegration disputes, within the wider framework of Legea muncii olandeză.
- We assess whether a wage stop meets the requirements of Article 7:629 BW.
- We draft the letter announcing or challenging a wage sanction.
- Pregătim o cerere pentru o opinie de specialitate UWV.
- We calculate outstanding wages, the statutory increase and statutory interest.
- We start or defend summary proceedings for payment of wages.
Rezumat
- A wage stop requires a specific ground in Article 7:629(3) BW and a failure without valid reason.
- The employer must report the ground, and any change of ground, without delay (Article 7:629(7) BW).
- Cooperating in an action plan does not require signing it, and a video call can be a valid alternative.
- Blocking a second opinion breaches Article 2.14d of the Working Conditions Decree.
- In the Overijssel case of 13 July 2026, the employer paid a 50% statutory increase, but no fair compensation.
Întrebări frecvente
Poate angajatorul să oprească salariile dacă un angajat bolnav nu vine la birou?
Not without more. A wage stop under Article 7:629(3) BW requires that the employee fails to meet a specific obligation without a valid reason. If the employee offers a reasonable alternative, such as a video call, the wage stop is usually not justified.
Does an action plan have to be signed?
No. Article 7:660a(1)(b) BW requires cooperation in drawing up, evaluating and adjusting the action plan, not a signature. The Overijssel court held that a refusal to sign does not justify a wage stop.
Can an employer continue a wage stop on a different ground?
Only if it informs the employee of the new ground without delay (Article 7:629(7) BW). Without that notification, the continued wage stop is unlawful, even if the new ground would in itself have been valid.
What is the statutory increase for late payment?
Under Article 7:625 BW, wages paid late through the employer’s fault are increased by 5% per working day from the fourth to the eighth working day and 1% per day after that, up to a maximum of 50%. The court may mitigate the increase.
When is fair compensation awarded after a fixed-term contract ends?
Only if not continuing the contract results from seriously culpable conduct of the employer (Article 7:673(9) BW). In the Overijssel case the employer acted culpably, but not seriously culpably, so the claim for €6,500 was rejected.
