A wage sanction after sick leave is only permitted under strict legal conditions. An employer cannot stop paying wages based on a general impression that an employee is not cooperating with their reintegration. That is illustrated once again by a ruling of the Rechtbank Overijssel (Overijssel District Court) of 13 July 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:4089). The subdistrict court ruled that a vegetable-cutting company had wrongfully stopped the wages of a sick employee, resulting in an order to pay the statutory wage increase, statutory interest, transition payment, collection costs and legal costs.
This article consists of two parts. First, a summary of the case itself: the facts and the ruling as established by the subdistrict court. This is followed by a broader discussion placing the ruling within the statutory framework and comparing it with other legislation and case law.
Part 1 — The wage sanction after sick leave: facts and decision
The facts
The employee was employed by the vegetable-cutting company from 1 July until 31 December 2025, for 24 hours a week. She reported sick on 14 July 2025. On 29 July 2025 the company doctor established that she was limited in pushing, pulling, lifting and carrying, but that adapted work, such as cleaning vegetables without lifting, was possible.
On 1 August 2025 the employer invited her to a meeting on location on 4 August to fill in the action plan (plan van aanpak). The employee indicated that travelling was not yet possible for her at that time and asked to hold the meeting by phone or video call; the employer insisted on a physical meeting because, in its view, the action plan also had to be signed. When the employee did not attend, the employer announced a wage stop by letter of 5 August 2025 for not cooperating with reintegration.
The employee subsequently requested a second opinion from another company doctor on 21 and again on 29 August 2025. The employer rejected this request, stating that it did not itself doubt the expertise of the company doctor, and referred her to an expert opinion from the UWV (Employee Insurance Agency). On 3 September 2025 the parties nevertheless jointly drew up the action plan, but the wage stop was maintained, now on the ground that the employee was not performing suitable work. On 28 October 2025 the UWV ruled that the employer’s reintegration efforts had been insufficient, partly because it had wrongly rejected the request for a second opinion. On 12 December 2025 the employer paid the outstanding wages after all.
The ruling on the wage stop of 5 August 2025
The subdistrict court ruled that there was no refusal to cooperate. The employee had in fact proposed discussing the action plan by video call. According to the subdistrict court, the obligation under Section 7:660a(1)(b) of the Dutch Civil Code (BW) concerns cooperating in drawing up, evaluating and adjusting the action plan, and signing it does not fall under that obligation: an employee is in principle entitled to refuse this without the wages being stopped for that reason. The employer had also failed to explain why a video call was not possible, and its stance was, according to the court, strongly driven by distrust towards the employee. Nor did it appear in the following weeks that she refused to cooperate. The wage stop was therefore wrongful from the outset.
The ruling on the wage stop after 3 September 2025
Because the parties drew up the action plan on that date after all, the original ground for the wage stop lapsed. The subdistrict court ruled that the employee had indeed been too passive afterwards, among other things by not actively discussing working days. Nevertheless, the continuation of the wage stop remained unlawful, because the employer had not complied with the notification requirement of Section 7:629(7) BW: it had not informed the employee without delay that the wage stop was now based on a different ground — not performing suitable work.
The ruling on the second opinion and the fair compensation
The subdistrict court held that the employer, by contributing to the fact that no second opinion from another company doctor took place, acted contrary to its obligation under Article 2.14d of the Working Conditions Decree (Arbeidsomstandighedenbesluit). The fact that the employer itself had no doubts about the advice of its own company doctor was not a valid reason. This amounted to culpable conduct, but not, according to the subdistrict court, seriously culpable conduct, partly because the employee too had not been sufficiently active, both in performing suitable work and in pursuing her own request for a second opinion. Because serious culpability was lacking, the claimed fair compensation under Section 7:673(9)(a) BW was rejected; the subsidiary claim for damages under Section 7:611 BW also failed, because insufficient concrete damage had been substantiated.
The amounts awarded
The subdistrict court awarded: €3,144.27 in statutory wage increase (50%, without mitigation) with statutory interest from 13 December 2025, €269.66 in transition payment with statutory interest from 1 February 2026, €729.88 in extrajudicial collection costs, and €1,102.00 in legal costs.
Part 2 — Broader legal context
This part places the ruling within the general statutory framework and draws connections with other legislation and case law. It therefore does not concern what the Rechtbank Overijssel itself considered, but the environment in which that ruling fits.
The statutory framework for wage payment during illness
Section 7:629(1) BW provides that a sick employee in principle retains the right to 70% of their wages for 104 weeks. Paragraph 3 of that section gives the employer the power to exclude wage payment when the employee, without a valid reason, among other things fails to perform suitable work, fails to comply with reasonable reintegration instructions, or refuses to cooperate with the action plan. This is a different ground than the suspension under Section 7:629(6) BW, which concerns failing to provide necessary information. Both are subject to the notification requirement of paragraph 7, which was decisive for the second phase of the wage stop in the Overijssel case.
The reintegration obligations under the Dutch sickness procedure regulation (Rpetz)
This regulation further elaborates the cooperation between employer and employee. Article 2 obliges the employer to provide timely information to the company doctor and to request an opinion within six weeks in the event of threatened long-term absence. Article 3 requires keeping a file in case of threatened long-term absence. Article 4 provides that the action plan must be drawn up in agreement with the employee within two weeks of the company doctor’s opinion, must be recorded in writing, and must be evaluated periodically. These deadlines and formal requirements complete the picture of what was expected of the parties in the Overijssel case.
Comparable case law: Rechtbank Limburg
In a summary judgment of 21 May 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2026:5082), the Rechtbank Limburg (Limburg District Court) reached a similar outcome in a slightly different set of facts. There too, an employee who was unable to travel could ask the employer for a digital or telephone consultation with the company doctor. The subdistrict court ruled that a wage stop could not be based on non-attendance at a “coffee moment” with HR, because without further explanation it did not appear that this was a measure aimed at performing suitable work, and because at that time there was no concrete reintegration obligation or action plan yet. This case confirms, independently of the Overijssel ruling, that courts are reluctant when a wage measure is linked to non-compliance with a non-statutory or insufficiently concrete obligation.
Second opinion and the Working Conditions Decree
Article 2.14d of that decree governs the employee’s right to consult another company doctor when they disagree with the advice of their own company doctor. The Rechtbank Overijssel expressly cites this article as the basis for the employer’s obligation. This is consistent with the general line in practice that an employer may not reject such a request merely because it itself has confidence in its own company doctor.
The role of the UWV
Under Article 32 of the Work and Income Implementation Structure Act (Wet SUWI), the UWV can, at the request of the employer or employee, investigate among other things whether reintegration efforts have been sufficient. In this case, that investigation led to an expert opinion favourable to the employee, which is not a binding judicial decision but does carry weight in a subsequent procedure.
The transition payment
The calculation of the wage concept for the transition payment is governed by the Decree on the Wage Concept for Notice Period Compensation and Transition Payment and the regulation based on it. Article 3 of that decree provides that holiday allowance, fixed year-end bonus, and fixed and variable wage components are added on top of the base wage of Article 2. This explains, in general terms, how an amount such as the transition payment awarded in this case is built up.
What this means for employers and employees
This ruling, read in conjunction with the broader legislation and comparable case law, shows that a wage sanction only holds up when the employer identifies a concrete statutory reintegration obligation, demonstrates that the employee failed to comply with it without valid reason, and communicates any change of ground without delay. The right to a second opinion also carries significant weight. At the same time, an active and constructive attitude is expected of the employee: in this case, the employee was found to be right about the unlawfulness of the wage stop, but her own passive attitude stood in the way of a fair compensation.
Frequently asked questions
Can an employer stop wages if a sick employee does not come to the office?
Not without more. A wage stop under Section 7:629(3) BW is only justified if the employee, without valid reason, refuses to cooperate with reintegration obligations. If the employee offers a reasonable alternative such as a video call, a wage stop is not automatically justified.
Does an action plan have to be signed in person?
No. The obligation under Section 7:660a BW concerns cooperating in drawing up, evaluating and adjusting the plan, not signing it.
Can an employer continue a wage stop later on a different ground?
Only if it communicates that new ground without delay. If that notification is missing, continuing the wage stop is unlawful, even if the new ground would in itself have been justified.
When must an employer cooperate with a second opinion?
An employee who disagrees with the company doctor’s advice has, under Article 2.14d of the Working Conditions Decree, the right to an assessment by another company doctor. An employer may not reject such a request merely because it itself has confidence in the earlier advice.
What is the statutory wage increase and when is it due?
The statutory wage increase under Section 7:625 BW is due when wages are not paid on time and the delay is attributable to the employer. It can rise to 50% of the wages paid late and is only mitigated if the circumstances warrant it.
What is the difference between culpable and seriously culpable conduct?
Culpable conduct means the employer did something wrong. Seriously culpable conduct is a stricter standard requiring that the conduct clearly falls outside the bounds of proper employership. Only in the case of serious culpability can fair compensation be awarded.
Can an employee also contribute to the failure of reintegration?
Yes. An overly passive attitude on the part of the employee can be a factor in rejecting fair compensation, even if she is found to be right about the lawfulness of the wage stop itself.
Are you an employer or employee dealing with a dispute over a wage sanction or reintegration process? Feel free to contact Law & More for tailored advice, or read more about our employment law services.
