Zieke Werknemer en Sancties - The Legal Company

Employment Law

16 June 2015

The sick employee and sanctions

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

The sick employee must make an effort to return to their own position as quickly as possible. The question of what a sick employee may and may not do during incapacity for work, and which sanctions may be applied, is not easy to answer. Incorrect advice from the occupational health service can also raise questions. Using 4 court cases, I will sketch a picture of which sanction/measure is possible per situation and what you should pay attention to. Do you have questions after reading this blog about a sick employee and/or the possible sanctions or measures? Then don’t hesitate to contact us.

Sanction of dissolution without compensation lawful: in a case from 29 January 2015 in which the sick employee carried out secondary activities and did not report this to the employer and the company doctor. The sick employee thereby withheld relevant information from the employer and did not comply with his reintegration obligation and the obligations under the employment contract. The employment contract was therefore dissolved without awarding a termination payment.

Sanction of summary dismissal not lawful: in a similar case from 18 December 2014 where the employee ran a marathon and, among other things, carried out work on his home. The employer took the view that this hindered reintegration and summarily dismissed him. According to the court, the employer should not have concluded, without consulting the company doctor, that the employee was hindering reintegration. Moreover, the fact that the employee had not reported the activities was not, in itself, an urgent reason for summary dismissal. Summary dismissal must really be seen as a last resort.

Sanction of summary dismissal lawful: in a case from 15 September 2014 in which the sick employee repeatedly failed to appear at the company doctor’s consultation hours and was unreachable for the employer. The sick employee thereby failed to comply with the employer’s control regulations. The employer initially warned the employee several times about the consequences of this, but that did not help. The employer subsequently suspended the salary, but that also had no effect. A summary dismissal followed. This summary dismissal was rightly given, according to the subdistrict court, because all the circumstances taken together formed an urgent reason for dismissal. So you see that drawing up control regulations and giving the employee (advance) written warnings is of great importance for your dismissal file.

Measure of holding the occupational health service liable permitted: in a case from 29 October 2014 in which the occupational health service gave the employer incorrect advice during the 104-week illness period and the UWV imposed a wage sanction. Reintegration was aimed at the employee’s own position, while that was no longer sustainably possible at all. Suitable work should have been looked at, under the first and second track, much earlier. The employer blames the occupational health service for having followed the wrong course the whole time. The occupational health service argues that it only gives advice which the employee does not have to follow, and that its general terms and conditions exclude liability. The Alkmaar subdistrict court, however, does not agree with this. The occupational health service was specifically engaged as an expert and cannot merely give non-binding suggestions.

Our advice:

The following lessons can be drawn from the preceding rulings:

Make clear agreements with the sick employee about reintegration. Use an illness and absence regulation for this, with rules, instructions and regulations. The advantage of a regulation is that you may implement this without the employee’s consent.
Consult with a lawyer about the appropriate sanctions and follow-up steps towards the employee, and apply these.
Has the occupational health service given you incorrect advice, and do you want to hold it liable for the wage sanction or other damage? Then first consult with a lawyer about the feasibility of your case and the correct approach to it.

Should you need help drawing up the illness and absence regulation, you can request a no-obligation quote here!

Read here the approach to an underperforming employee!

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.