Home > Topic > Employment law > UWV WERKbedrijf’s condition for re-entry into service only applicable to reorganised business location
UWV WERKbedrijf’s condition for re-entry into service only applicable to reorganised business location

UWV WERKbedrijf’s condition for re-entry into service only applicable to reorganised business location

UWV WERKbedrijf, the administrative office for employed persons insurance schemes, generally attaches the so-called condition for re-entry into service to a dismissal permit due to economic reasons. In brief this condition means that for 26 weeks after obtaining the approval of UWV WERKbedrijf the employer may not hire any other employees to perform the same work that the dismissed employee performed without giving the dismissed employee the opportunity to resume his previous duties under the usual conditions at the employer. In addition, borrowing temporary agency workers is regarded in this connection as hiring. In a recent judgment of the Leeuwardensub-district court (National Case-Law Number: BQ0962), the sub-district court determined that this condition is solely applicable to the business location to which the principle of proportionality has been applied within the framework of the granted permission for dismissal.

The employee had argued in the proceedings that the employer had systematically hired temporary agency workers at other business locations, which, according to the employee, violated the re-entry into service condition. In the employee’s opinion, all locations of an employer should, after a reorganisation of one specific location, be restricted in their hiring policy. However, since no new people had been hired or temporary agency workers borrowed at the reorganised business location, the sub-district court dismissed the claims of the employee. The sub-district court held that the view of the employee was in violation with the purport of the re-entry into service condition and could also result in unreasonable and unworkable situations.

The question whether the dismissal had been manifestly unreasonable or not, in spite of the temporary agency workers being borrowed at other locations, was not discussed in this judgment. Dependent upon the circumstances, an employee could successfully argue that his dismissal from one location was manifestly unreasonable if at the same time employees were hired for the same job at another location.

Buby den Heeten

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • email
  • Google Plus
  • LinkedIn
  • PDF

Scroll To Top