Unilateral Change in Job Duties: What Can an Employer Do?
In a ruling dated April 6, 2023, the Oost-Brabant Subdistrict Court ruled on an issue that frequently arises in labor relations: under what circumstances may an employer reassign an employee to a lower-level position without the employee’s consent? In this case, an employer decided to demote an employee following an incident in the workplace, but the judge overruled the decision. The case makes it clear that demotion is only permissible under strict conditions.
The reason: leaving early and a sudden demotion
The employee in question had been working for a fruit and vegetable wholesaler since 2016. Over the years, she had worked her way up from production worker to supervisor plus. On August 6, 2022, she left work two hours early without permission after her request to leave early had been denied. According to the employer, this disrupted the production process, and this incident came on top of a series of years during which, in the employer’s view, the employee’s performance had been subpar. The employer decided to demote her to the position of production worker, with a corresponding lower salary.
The employee protested. She argued that the job reassignment was unjustified and careless, that she had in fact received promotions in the years leading up to the incident, and that there was no evidence of chronic poor performance. She also claimed that her departure on August 6 was justified by valid reasons, namely an urgent car problem that required a visit to the repair shop. Furthermore, she stated that she had properly handed over her duties. The case eventually went to court.
The Legal Framework: Article 7:613 of the Dutch Civil Code and Good Employment Practices
The court assessed whether the employer was entitled to unilaterally change the employee’s job description based on the amendment clause in the employment contract. Such a clause is legally valid in and of itself, but may only be invoked when the employer has such a compelling interest that the employee’s interest must give way to it. This follows from Article 7:613 of the Civil Code. In addition, the general principle of good employment practices applies.
In this case, the subdistrict court ruled that this was not a situation in which that careful balancing of interests favored the employer. Although the employer had argued that the employee’s performance had been unsatisfactory for years, it had failed to provide convincing evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, the employee had received promotions in the years leading up to the incident, which is inconsistent with the notion of long-term poor performance. Furthermore, no improvement plan had been initiated or announced, even though, according to the judge, this should have been expected. After all, an employee may only be subject to a drastic measure such as demotion after being given a fair chance to improve.
The demotion was disproportionate
Although the employee could be held responsible for the incident on August 6, 2022—after all, it was a busy time and he had not been given permission to leave early—the judge did not find that this alone could justify a demotion. There was no evidence that the production process had actually been seriously disrupted. According to the labor court judge, the employer could therefore have considered other, less drastic measures—such as an official warning or a temporary disciplinary action. A structural change to the employee’s position and salary went too far in this case.
The employer also argued that the employee could be promoted again in the future if she proved herself once more, but the judge did not find that convincing either. Demoting an employee first and only then offering a chance for reinstatement is contrary to the principles of fair employment practices.
Reinstatement and Wage Claim Granted
The subdistrict court judge largely granted the employee’s claim. The employer was ordered to reinstate her to her former position as supervisor plus within one week and to pay the back wages retroactively, including benefits and statutory interest. In addition, a penalty was imposed for each day the employer remained in default. The statutory surcharge for late payment of wages was also partially awarded.
The judge emphasized that the importance of careful decision-making carries significant weight, especially when it comes to primary terms of employment such as job classification and compensation. Without a convincing improvement plan and without clear communication about the consequences in advance, a job classification change is legally vulnerable.
Conclusion
A demotion is a drastic measure that, under labor law, is permitted only in exceptional cases. This ruling makes it clear that an employer must first act with due care, establish a performance improvement plan, and be able to demonstrate specific misconduct. Only when these conditions are met and the employer’s interests outweigh those of the employee can a demotion be upheld. Demoting an employee without clear justification—even after an incident—is not legally tenable.
Employers facing performance issues or a labor dispute would be well advised to seek legal counsel in a timely manner. Employees, for their part, should be aware of their rights when their terms of employment change.
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 agreements 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 a demotion. Please feel free to contact us .
August 2026