Suspension after an integrity investigation: when is it allowed?

An employer may suspend you from your duties (non-actiefstelling) after an integrity investigation only if it has a reasonable and sufficiently compelling ground, tested against the good-employer standard of Article 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). The fact that the employer wants to end your employment contract, or has already asked the subdistrict court (kantonrechter) to dissolve it, is not enough on its own.

A suspension is not a disciplinary sanction. Your employment contract continues, and under Article 7:628 BW your employer must in principle keep paying your salary while you are not admitted to work. In this article we explain the test, how the Rotterdam District Court applied it in a case against BP Raffinaderij Rotterdam B.V. on 24 June 2026, and what you can do as an employee or an employer.

When may an employer suspend an employee from duties?

Only when there is a reasonable and sufficiently compelling ground, and the interests of the employer outweigh those of the employee. Dutch law has no separate statutory regime for suspension, so the court applies the good-employer and good-employee standard of Article 7:611 BW.

The starting point is that you are entitled to be admitted to the work you agreed to do. An employer who keeps you away from work must therefore explain why your presence is not acceptable for the time being. A general statement that trust has been damaged does not meet that standard.

If a ground exists, the court weighs the interests. On the employer’s side, it looks at continuity of the business, enforcement of the integrity policy and the risk of repetition. On your side, it looks at your position, your income, your professional network and the significance of the work itself. The measure should last no longer than the next procedural step requires.

Are pending dismissal proceedings a sufficient ground?

No. An application to dissolve the contract under Article 7:671b BW does not by itself justify keeping you away from work. Extra circumstances are needed, such as the nature of the allegations combined with the demands of your role.

If the employer relies on seriously culpable conduct, the stakes are higher than the suspension alone. Under Article 7:673(7)(c) BW, no transition payment (transitievergoeding) is owed if the contract ends as a result of seriously culpable conduct by the employee, although the court may still award it under Article 7:673(8) BW where withholding it would be unacceptable.

What did the court decide in the BP case?

The preliminary relief judge (voorzieningenrechter) of the Rotterdam District Court refused to order BP to readmit the employee to work. The judge found that BP had a sufficiently compelling ground, given the integrity allegations and the independence required in the employee’s role (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:9357, case number C/10/719834 / KG ZA 26-471).

What were the facts?

The employee had worked for BP since 1 February 2023 as a junior asset planner on a contract for an indefinite period, and was also a co-owner of his own company. BP investigated undisclosed conflicts of interest, irregularities in vendor registration and invoicing, and a claim for reimbursement of training costs. The employee was interviewed on 19 November 2025 and 17 February 2026, and the investigation report is dated 20 February 2026.

After a hearing on 15 April 2026, BP wrote on 20 April 2026 that it saw seriously culpable conduct and wished to end the contract, preferably by settlement agreement. The employee refused to be released from duties and returned to work on 22 April 2026. BP suspended him that same day, provided the report on 24 April 2026 and filed a dissolution request on 2 June 2026. The employee then started summary proceedings (kort geding) for readmission within 24 hours.

How did the judge assess the allegations?

The judge accepted that the employee had an urgent interest, but found his defences provisionally insufficient. He said he had disclosed his company on an Ethics and Compliance form when he joined, but could not substantiate this. He called a training-cost claim of €2,500 that fell outside the reimbursement scheme an unintentional mistake, which the judge did not find convincing.

The judge considered two allegations provisionally plausible: failing to report, or report in time, conflicts of interest between the employee, his company and his manager; and irregularities in vendor registration and invoicing. The employee’s company had been approved as a supplier in June 2024 and later generated more than €1 million in revenue. The complaint that the investigation was unsound failed, because the employee did not say concretely where it fell short.

BP had explained, with reference to the specific planner role, why a return was not responsible. The claim was rejected and the employee was ordered to pay BP’s legal costs.

Why did the conflict of interest weigh so heavily?

Because the employee, his company and his manager were connected, according to the judge’s provisional view, and this had not been reported in time. The judgment does not reveal the exact relationship with the manager or the manager’s role in the approval chain, so we leave that aside.

From a compliance point of view, a shared interest within your own reporting line undermines segregation of duties, even if procedures are followed on paper. A reporting duty limited to secondary activities may not cover it. A reporting channel outside the direct manager, and periodic comparison of supplier data with employee data, reduce that risk.

Which safeguards apply during an internal integrity investigation?

There is no detailed statutory procedure for internal investigations, but Article 7:611 BW requires the employer to investigate carefully. In practice that means you know which allegations are at issue, you are heard before conclusions are drawn, and you can respond to the findings.

In the BP case, the employee was interviewed twice, heard separately on 15 April 2026 and given the report on request. The way evidence is gathered also matters: a court may criticise an employer for how it monitored an employee, as in a case on summary dismissal for alleged hour shortfalls. For the general rules on suspension and pay, see our article on suspension or non-active status.

What should you check as an employee?

Summary proceedings leave little room for gathering evidence, so you must make your position plausible straight away. These checks help:

• Ask in writing for the investigation report and the underlying documents, and note the date you receive them.
• Check whether the employer has given a concrete reason why your return is not acceptable, beyond the wish to dismiss you.
• Collect proof of any earlier disclosure of a secondary activity or interest, such as a signed compliance form or e-mail.
• Respond to the findings point by point and name the questions not asked, documents ignored or people not interviewed.
• Check whether your salary is still being paid in full under Article 7:628 BW.
• Get legal advice before an interview, because your statements become part of the file.

What should you check as an employer?

A suspension holds up best when the process is documented from the first interview. Check the following:

• Record the allegations in writing before you interview the employee.
• Hear the employee at least once before drawing conclusions, and keep minutes.
• Explain, with reference to the specific role, why a return to work is not responsible for now.
• Provide the investigation report on request and keep proof of when you did so.
• Keep paying salary under Article 7:628 BW and set a clear end point for the suspension.
• Make sure your code of conduct covers interests within the employee’s own reporting line.

What can we do for you with a suspension after an integrity investigation?

Our employment lawyers in Eindhoven and Amsterdam act for both employees and employers, within the wider framework of Dutch employment law.

• We review the suspension letter and the investigation report and assess whether a compelling ground has been shown.
• We prepare you for the interview or hearing and attend it with you.
• We draft a written, point-by-point response to the findings.
• We start or defend summary proceedings for readmission to work.
• We negotiate a settlement agreement or conduct the dissolution proceedings before the subdistrict court.
• For employers, we set up the investigation and reporting procedure so that a suspension can be justified.

Summary

• A suspension requires a reasonable and sufficiently compelling ground under the good-employer standard of Article 7:611 BW.
• An intended dismissal or a pending dissolution request is not enough on its own.
• Salary in principle continues during the suspension under Article 7:628 BW.
• In the BP case of 24 June 2026, unreported conflicts of interest combined with the demands of the role justified the suspension.
• Both sides gain most from a carefully documented investigation and a prompt, concrete written response.

Frequently asked questions