You have signed an employment contract, but your new job has not yet started. Then your employer calls: the contract is being terminated, invoking the probationary period. Is that legally valid? On 12 February 2026, the Limburg District Court answered that question with a clear yes — and the ruling has significant implications for both employers and employees.
ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2026:1410 — Limburg District Court (Cantonal Court Maastricht), 12 February 2026
What happened?
On 21 October 2025, an employer and employee signed a fixed-term employment contract for seven months. The start date was 1 November 2025, and a one-month probationary period applied. Less than a day after signing, the employee asked her employer for a salary advance of €1,000, to be paid on 14 November 2025 — to cover her rent.
The employer — a casino — refused the advance and on 22 October 2025 verbally terminated the contract. This was confirmed in writing on 27 October 2025. At that point, the employee had not worked a single day: her intended start date was still over a week away.
The legal question: can a probationary dismissal occur before employment begins?
The employee brought the matter before the cantonal court, arguing primarily that the termination was invalid: since the employment contract had not yet commenced, the employer could not invoke the probationary period. In the alternative, she claimed a fair compensation of seven gross monthly salaries.
The court rejected this argument. Under Article 7:652 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW) and Article 7:676 BW, both parties may terminate the employment contract with immediate effect during the probationary period, ‘for as long as that period has not yet expired.’ The legislature deliberately chose this wording to allow termination even before the employment contract has actually commenced. Since the probationary period had plainly not yet expired, the dismissal was legally valid.
Good employership as a limit
A legally valid probationary dismissal is not automatically a lawful one. Under Article 7:611 BW, the employer is bound by the principles of good employership. The employee argued that the employer had itself suggested during the signing of the contract that employees could always request a salary advance. By dismissing her precisely when she took up that offer, the employer allegedly misused the probationary clause for a purpose other than its intended one: assessing the employee’s suitability for the role.
It is for the employee to bear the burden of pleading — and, where sufficiently contested, the burden of proof — that the dismissal was contrary to good employership. The employee must put forward sufficiently concrete facts showing that the termination was motivated by abuse of rights, discrimination, or other exceptional circumstances. The mere experience of the dismissal as unreasonable is not enough.
The court did not accept the employee’s reasoning. The employer substantively denied having made any such offer. What it had said was that it expected employees to report financial difficulties — specifically to prevent theft from the cash register. An advance was therefore not a standard option; at most, holiday pay might be released early in exceptional circumstances.
The casino also pointed out that cash theft incidents were a recurring problem on its premises. The fact that a new employee was already experiencing financial difficulties serious enough to require an advance against her future salary before her first day of work represented, in the employer’s view, an unacceptable business risk. The court agreed: given the balance of interests and the absence of sufficient substantiation by the employee, the employer had not acted contrary to the principles of good employership.
Fair compensation denied
The alternative claim for fair compensation also failed. Such compensation requires a termination in violation of Article 7:671 BW, but no such violation had occurred. The court further noted that the employee had already started a new job on 3 November 2025 — just two days after her intended start date — meaning her actual financial loss was likely minimal.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling confirms that a probationary dismissal can be validly given before the employee has worked a single day. No reasonable ground is required — an employer has near-complete freedom during the probationary period, provided it does not act contrary to the principles of good employership.
For employers in sectors where financial integrity is critical — such as hospitality, retail, and financial services — this judgment offers clear guidance. Early signals of financial vulnerability in a new employee can justify invoking the probationary period, even before that employee has crossed the threshold.
A word of caution, however: the probationary clause must itself be legally valid. That means agreed in writing, of equal duration for both parties, and not exceeding the statutory maximum (one month for contracts shorter than two years; two months for contracts of two years or longer). A probationary clause that fails to meet these requirements is void under Article 7:652(8) BW — and a dismissal based on a void clause is equally ineffective.
What does this mean for employees?
Employees who have signed a contract but not yet started work are already in an employment relationship — but without the protection that dismissal law normally provides. A probationary dismissal is virtually unchallengeable unless a discriminatory motive can be demonstrated (such as pregnancy or trade union membership) or there is clear evidence of misuse of the probationary clause. The burden of proof for these exceptions rests with the employee.
Always check whether the probationary clause has been correctly formulated. If it has not been agreed in writing, applies to a contract that is too short, or exceeds the permitted duration, the clause is void. In that case, you can challenge the dismissal and claim continued salary payment and potentially fair compensation.
Finally, be aware that your conduct before your first working day — such as requesting a salary advance — can give an employer grounds to act. If specific arrangements have been made, ensure they are recorded in writing in the employment contract or an annex to it.
Conclusion
The Limburg District Court makes clear: the probationary period begins when the employment contract is signed, not on the first day of work. An employer who invokes the probationary period before employment has commenced acts lawfully — provided this is done in time, the probationary clause is correctly formulated, and the employer does not act contrary to the principles of good employership (Article 7:611 BW). This ruling underlines the importance of a carefully drafted employment contract and a well-considered probationary clause.
Do you have questions about probationary dismissal, drafting employment contracts, or employment law in general? The employment law specialists at Law & More are here to help.
