UWV refuses to grant a dismissal permit: does this mean the employee must return to work?

An employer is refused permission by the UWV to dismiss an employee on commercial grounds. Does this automatically mean that the employee must be able to resume their duties? Not according to the Limburg District Court. In a recent ruling (ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2026:10996), the subdistrict court ruled that an employer may, under certain circumstances, exempt an employee from work, even if the UWV has refused to grant a dismissal permit.

What were the facts of the case?

An employee had been employed as a Project Engineer since 2017. As part of a reorganization, the employer decided to relocate various tasks abroad. According to the employer, this meant that the employee’s post was no longer required. The employer therefore applied to the UWV for permission to terminate the employment contract. However, the UWV refused to grant the dismissal permit. The employer subsequently decided to exempt the employee from work whilst continuing to pay his salary. The employee disagreed with this and brought summary proceedings in which he claimed reinstatement. In his view, the employer had acted contrary to the principles of good employment practice by no longer allowing him to carry out his duties.

Ruling of the subdistrict court

The subdistrict court judge first noted that, under Article 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code, an employee is, in principle, entitled to carry out the agreed work. An employer may only deviate from this where there are reasonable and compelling grounds for doing so. In this case, the employer had sufficiently demonstrated that such grounds existed. A large proportion of the employee’s duties had by then been relocated abroad, leaving insufficient regular work.

The subdistrict court emphasized that, in principle, an employer is free to organize their business as they see fit. This also means that an employer may relocate work or discontinue roles. A refusal by the UWV merely means that the employer may not terminate the employment contract. It does not automatically follow from this that the employee must actually be reinstated.

An employee cannot be exempted from work indefinitely

The subdistrict court emphasized that an exemption from work must serve a purpose and lead to a specific outcome. An employer may not leave an employee in a state of uncertainty about their future for an indefinite period. In the context of the employer’s duty of care, it may be incumbent upon the employer to take action in this regard.

What does this mean for employers?

This ruling shows that a refusal to grant a dismissal license does not automatically mean that an employer must reinstate an employee to their duties. Where, as a result of a reorganization, there is genuinely insufficient permanent work available, an exemption with continued pay may be justified in exceptional cases. The question, of course, is whether the employer would have been better off applying to the subdistrict court to have the employment contract terminated after all. Keeping an employee on paid leave is an expensive solution.