There are some employees who do not take things very seriously when it comes to the rules that apply to them during illness. An example from our practice.
It is a beautiful summer morning with a brisk breeze. Employee knows better than to throw himself into a traffic jam heading to work. He grabs his kitesurfing gear and heads to the beach by car. At noon, employee reports sick by phone. Employer takes immediate action and tries to get in touch with employee. It does not succeed. Even after two written warnings, the employee does not contact the employer. Employer again summons employee in writing to appear at work, failing which salary will be suspended. Employee again fails to appear and employer suspends payment of the salary. The employee is then summoned to the company doctor but fails to attend there either. UWV subsequently rules that the employee's reintegration efforts are insufficient.
It can be risky to summarily dismiss an employee who fails to comply with sickness control rules. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled earlier that repeatedly violating control regulations should lead to a wage sanction and not a summary dismissal. So it turns out, the employer has to do a lot and is allowed to do very little. However, the employer in this case is not empty-handed. The employer can, despite the prohibition on termination during sickness, have the employment contract dissolved by the subdistrict court for the employee's violation of the sick leave regulations.
In this case, the subdistrict court dissolved the employment contract. According to the subdistrict court, the employee acted seriously culpable and was therefore also not entitled to the transitional compensation.
Tip: Include an Absenteeism Regulation in the employment contract that lays down all agreements and monitoring requirements in case of illness. Then there can be no misunderstanding about it.