Sick employees are required to cooperate in their reintegration. If they fail to do so, an employer may suspend or even stop wages. But such measures should not be taken lightly. The subdistrict court judge of the Central Netherlands District Court underlined this again in a case in which both a wage suspension and a wage freeze were imposed on a sick employee. The judge ruled that these sanctions were unjustified and required the employer to still pay the overdue wages.
Suspending wages: temporary measure in case of ambiguity
A wage deferral is intended as a means of pressure when it is unclear whether an employee is actually sick, for example, when he does not show up for an appointment with the company doctor. As soon as the employee cooperates in reintegration again, the withheld wages must still be paid.
Wage freeze: definitively no right to wages
A wage freeze goes a step further: the employee loses his right to wages, even retroactively. This is only allowed if there is serious culpability, such as refusing suitable work or not cooperating with a plan of action.
Judge: no grounds for wage suspension
In the case before it, the employee reported sick on January 11, 2022. The employer found that he was not cooperating sufficiently in his reintegration and decided to first suspend and then stop wages as of October 2022. The reason was a failure to appear for appointments with the company doctor. The employee disputed this, stating, among other things, that he did appear for the appointment on September 20, 2022, but had to return home due to a positive coronary test. He would never have received a new invitation for an October 19 appointment.
The district judge vindicated the employee. There appeared to be insufficient evidence that he had been informed of the October 19 appointment. In addition, he had still visited the company doctor on November 30. Because no real reintegration opportunities had been missed and the salary suspension led to financial problems, the judge ruled that it was not justified.
Wage freeze doesn't hold up either
As for the wage freeze, it appeared that the employer had not sent the plan of action until after the wage freeze was imposed. Although the employee returned it a little later than requested, it was still on time, according to the court. Moreover, the employer could not prove that the employee had impeded his recovery. Thus, there was no valid reason for the wage freeze.
Effects on the employer
The subdistrict court declared the wage suspension and wage freeze invalid and required the employer to still pay full wages for three months, including statutory increase and interest. In addition, the employer was ordered to pay the litigation costs.
Lesson for employers: be cautious about wage sanctions
This ruling shows that wage sanctions in case of illness are only justified if the employer acts carefully. That means: clear and verifiable communication, written warnings and demonstrable consultation on reintegration. If this does not happen, a wage penalty can quickly prove to be untenable and wages must still be paid.
Employers are well advised to seek legal advice when in doubt before proceeding to suspend or stop pay. The bar is high, and the financial and legal consequences of an unjustified action are significant.
This blog was written by mr. Stijn Blom, employment lawyer at Arbeidsadvocaat.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and supports entrepreneurs and employees on a daily basis with a variety of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight contracts and regulations - with his practical and personal approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to know more? Visit Stijn's page.
Arbeidsadvocaat.com is happy to think with you if you have questions about wage suspension and wage freeze. Please feel free to contact us .
April 2025
