Job Change Following a Takeover: Can You, as an Employee, Refuse Instructions? What was going on in this case?
This ruling centered on the question of whether an employee is obligated to accept a new position after his employer was acquired and his former position was eliminated. The employee in question worked for Mammoet Transport B.V. and managed a business unit. Following a takeover, he was offered a different role as an “advisor,” which he refused. Mammoet subsequently stopped paying his wages. The employee sued for continued payment of his wages but lost the case.
The case eventually made its way all the way to the Supreme Court, which made it clear how carefully an employer and an employee must handle situations of this kind.
What does the law say about job changes?
The crux of this case lies in Article 7:611 of the Civil Code. This article requires employers and employees to behave as a “good employer” and a “good employee,” respectively. But what exactly does that mean in practice?
According to the Supreme Court, an employer may, in the event of changed circumstances (such as a takeover or reorganization), make a reasonable proposal to amend the employment contract. In principle, an employee may refuse such a proposal only if it cannot reasonably be expected of him or her.
When is a proposal “reasonable”?
Whether a proposal is reasonable depends on all the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court states that you must consider:
- the nature of the change;
- the impact of the proposal on the employee;
- the employer’s interests;
- the extent to which the proposal was carefully developed.
In this case, Mammoet had offered the employee a different, suitable position with the same salary and status, and that change was motivated by legitimate business interests following a takeover. Therefore, the court ruled that the offer was reasonable and that the employee had wrongfully refused it.
What does this mean for you as an employee?
You don’t have to blindly agree to every job change. But if there are objective reasons (such as a reorganization or merger) and the new position is reasonably comparable to your previous job, then you are expected to cooperate.
If you refuse to do so without a compelling reason, you run the risk of losing your right to wages. In the worst-case scenario, it could even be considered a refusal to work, which could result in termination.
And what about employers?
It is essential for employers to carefully prepare for job changes:
- Be sure to document the reason for the change thoroughly.
- Involve the employee in the process early on.
- Offer an alternative that matches their experience, salary, and skills.
- Put everything in writing.
That way, you show that you act like a good employer. And that’s crucial if a conflict arises.
What if you don’t agree with a change?
As an employee, it’s important to object immediately if you disagree with a job reassignment. Do so in writing and support your position with evidence. Then discuss whether there are any alternatives. In some cases, legal action may be necessary, but that’s often a last resort.
Conclusion: Reasonableness and consultation are key
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores that job reassignments are not a one-way street. Employers may not make changes arbitrarily, but employees may not simply refuse them either. Reasonableness, consultation, and careful balancing of interests are key.
This blog was written by Stijn Blom, Esq., an employment law attorney at Arbeidsadvocaat.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and assists employers and employees on a daily basis with a wide range of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight contracts and policies—with his practical and personalized approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to learn more? Visit Stijn’s page.
Arbeidsadvocaat.nl is happy to help you if you have any questions about being a good employee or a good employer. Please feel free to contact us .
April 2025