An employee who is not permitted to return to work following an internal integrity investigation may find himself in a difficult procedural position. For as long as the termination proceedings are pending, he remains outside the organisation, with consequences for the performance of his role, his network and his position in the labour market. Preliminary relief proceedings seeking readmission to work are one of the few available remedies, but they do not succeed as a matter of course.
In this article you will read what the statutory main rules are on suspension from duties after an integrity investigation, which exceptions apply and which steps you can take:
- the standard against which a court reviews a suspension;
- why pending termination proceedings are not sufficient on their own;
- what this judgment shows about conflicts of interest within your own reporting line;
- what an employer must document to make the measure defensible;
- what an employee must substantiate in preliminary relief proceedings.
The question is under what circumstances an employer may suspend an employee from his duties while dismissal proceedings are pending. A judgment of the preliminary relief judge of the Rotterdam District Court of 24 June 2026, in the case against BP Raffinaderij Rotterdam B.V., offers an illustration.
A note on terminology: the Dutch measure at issue is a non-actiefstelling, referred to here as suspension from duties. It means that the employee is temporarily not admitted to work while the employment contract remains in force, and it is not the same as a disciplinary sanction.
Facts and course of the proceedings
The employee entered into employment with BP Raffinaderij Rotterdam B.V. on 1 February 2023 for an indefinite period, as a junior asset planner. He was also a co-owner of his own company.
BP conducted an internal integrity investigation. That investigation focused on three subjects: potential conflicts of interest that had not been reported, or not reported in time; irregularities relating to vendor registration and invoicing; and a claim for reimbursement of training costs. The employee was interviewed on 19 November 2025 and on 17 February 2026. The investigation report is dated 20 February 2026.
A meeting took place on 15 April 2026 at which the employee was given the opportunity to be heard and to respond. By letter of 20 April 2026, BP took the position that there had been seriously culpable conduct and that the relationship of trust had been irreparably damaged. BP indicated that it wished to terminate the employment contract, preferably by means of a settlement agreement, and requested that the employee be released from his duties. The employee declined that request and resumed his work on 22 April 2026. BP suspended him from his duties with immediate effect that same day.
The following procedural steps then took place. The employee requested the underlying documents and disputed the suspension. BP provided the investigation report on 24 April 2026. On 2 June 2026, BP filed an application with the District Court to terminate the employment contract. The employee initiated preliminary relief proceedings and sought an order requiring that he be readmitted to work within 24 hours.
The assessment framework: good employment practice
There is no separate statutory regime governing suspension from duties. The permissibility of the measure is therefore assessed against the standard of good employment practice laid down in Article 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code.
In principle, an employee is entitled to be admitted to the work that has been agreed. A suspension from duties therefore requires a reasonable and sufficiently compelling ground. The mere fact that the employer is seeking to terminate the employment contract, or has filed an application to that effect, is not sufficient.
Where such a ground exists, a weighing of interests follows. On the employer’s side, the following may be relevant: continuity of business operations, enforcement of its integrity policy and the risk of recurrence. On the employee’s side, the retention of his position, his income and the professional and social significance of the work carry weight.
The judgment of the preliminary relief judge
The preliminary relief judge held that the employee had a sufficiently urgent interest. The claim was then assessed on its merits.
The employee stated that he had disclosed his involvement in the company on entering into employment, by means of an Ethics and Compliance form. BP disputed this. The preliminary relief judge held that this assertion was, provisionally, insufficiently substantiated. As regards the claim for reimbursement of 2,500 euro for a training course that fell outside the reimbursement scheme, the employee stated that this had happened unintentionally. The judge considered that explanation insufficient to rebut the remaining findings.
The employee further argued that the integrity investigation was methodologically unsound and based on subjective assumptions. That defence was rejected, because the employee did not specify in concrete terms where the investigation fell short, and he had been given the opportunity to put forward his position on several occasions.
The preliminary relief judge held it provisionally plausible that at least two allegations could be attributed to the employee: the failure to report, or to report in time, conflicts of interest between the employee, his company and his manager; and irregularities relating to vendor registration and invoicing. In that context, it was taken into account that the company was approved as a supplier in June 2024 and subsequently generated more than one million euro in revenue.
In the judge’s view, BP had sufficiently explained that the planner role requires a high degree of independence and integrity, and that the employee’s return would entail risks for business operations and for the enforcement of its integrity policy.
The preliminary relief judge concluded that BP had a reasonable and sufficiently compelling ground for the suspension, and that readmission to work could not reasonably be required of BP. The claim was dismissed. The employee was ordered to pay BP’s costs of the proceedings, amounting to 2,101 euro, within fourteen days, increased by 98 euro plus service costs in the event of late payment. The judgment is provisionally enforceable.
The conflict of interest examined more closely
The conflict of interest carried considerable weight in this case, because the employee, his company and his manager were connected, according to the preliminary assessment of the judge. The judge also held it plausible that this conflict of interest had not been reported, or had not been reported in time. Combined with the vendor registration, the invoicing and the nature of the planner role, this could, in the judge’s view, affect the independence and integrity required.
The judgment does not disclose the precise nature of the relationship between the employee and his manager. The same applies to the question of what role the manager himself played in the approval chain. Neither point can be established on the basis of the judgment and both are therefore left aside here.
From a compliance perspective, a situation of this kind may give rise to risks for the independence of internal controls. Where an employee and the person who assesses or approves his work share an interest in the same supplier or assignment, the segregation of duties may in practice be undermined, even where the procedures have been followed on paper. That observation must be distinguished from the factual findings and the provisional assessment in the judgment.
This distinction may be relevant to the design of a compliance policy. A reporting obligation limited to secondary activities does not necessarily cover a shared interest within the employee’s own reporting line. A reporting channel outside the immediate manager, and periodic comparison of supplier data against employee data, may help to limit that risk.
What this judgment means in practice
For employers
The judgment illustrates the importance of a carefully structured process. In this case the employee was interviewed twice, was separately given the opportunity to be heard and to respond, the conclusions were recorded in writing and the investigation report was provided on request. BP also explained, by reference to the specific role, why a return to the planner position was not considered responsible. A general assertion that trust has been damaged does not provide that substantiation.
For employees
Preliminary relief proceedings leave limited room for the production of evidence. Assertions must therefore be made plausible immediately. Reliance on a disclosure made earlier carries little weight if that disclosure cannot be produced. Likewise, a challenge to the design of the investigation will generally succeed only where it is specified which questions were not asked, which documents were not taken into account and which individuals were not interviewed.
Frequently asked questions
This article discusses one specific judgment. For the general rules on suspension, pay and a careful investigation, see our article on suspension or non-active status.
Are pending termination proceedings a sufficient ground?
No. As set out above in relation to the assessment framework, anticipating a termination does not in itself justify a suspension from duties. Additional circumstances are required, such as, in this case, the nature of the allegations in conjunction with the demands of the role.
Can I obtain readmission to work through preliminary relief proceedings?
That is possible. An urgent interest is generally assumed for this type of claim. The assessment then focuses on whether a sufficiently compelling ground for the measure is lacking, applying the framework set out above. If the claim is dismissed, an order to pay the other party’s costs of the proceedings will normally follow.
What safeguards apply during an internal integrity investigation?
There is no detailed statutory regime for internal investigations. The standard of good employment practice does, however, require the investigation to be conducted carefully. That includes the employee knowing which allegations are at issue, being heard before conclusions are drawn, and being able to respond to the findings. It may be advisable to obtain legal advice before an interview, since statements may become part of the investigation file.
Am I entitled to access the investigation report?
Whether, and to what extent, access must be given depends on the circumstances and on the way in which the report is used. In this case the employee received the investigation report on 24 April 2026. A request for the report and the relevant underlying documents is best made in writing.
What can I do if I disagree with the findings?
Respond in writing and finding by finding. Explain why a finding is incorrect or incomplete and attach supporting material, such as emails, forms, calendar entries or statements. A general denial, or the bare assertion that the investigation was unsound, offers insufficient support. That is also apparent from this judgment.
When must I report a secondary activity or a conflict of interest?
The starting point is that disclosure should be made as soon as a conflict of interest, or the appearance of one, may arise. Examples include a company of one’s own doing business with the employer, a family relationship with a supplier, or a personal relationship with the person deciding on procurement or approval. What exactly must be reported follows from the applicable code of conduct or compliance policy. A written disclosure with confirmation is advisable, not least because later reliance on a disclosure must be capable of being substantiated.
Is it enough that my manager is aware of it?
Not necessarily. Where the manager is himself involved in the interest concerned, he cannot assess the disclosure independently. Reporting to the organisation, for example to compliance, HR or a designated reporting channel, is then the appropriate course. Here too, recording the disclosure in writing strengthens the employee’s evidentiary position.
May I do business with my employer through my own company?
This is not excluded as such, but it requires transparency in advance and consent from the person authorised to give it within the organisation. It is also important that the employee plays no part in the selection, approval, invoicing or control relating to his own company. The blurring of those roles was a significant element in the assessment in this case.
What if my manager faces the same allegations?
That does not necessarily lead to a different outcome for the employee himself, since roles and responsibilities may differ. It may, however, be relevant to the weighing of interests and to the question whether the investigation was conducted in a balanced manner. Reliance on that argument requires concrete substantiation of the alleged unequal treatment of equal cases.
What can an employer do to make the measure defensible?
What matters is a documented investigation, applying the opportunity to be heard and to respond, recording the conclusions in writing and providing the report on request. In addition, the employer should substantiate, by reference to the specific role, why a return is not considered responsible, and should not maintain the measure for longer than the next procedural step requires.
How we can help
We assess whether a suspension from duties holds up in your situation, whether the integrity investigation was carried out properly and which steps are sensible at that moment. We do this for employers and for employees. Our employment lawyers in Eindhoven and Amsterdam review your file and the investigation report. Please feel free to contact us.
A suspension from duties is not an automatic consequence of an intended termination of the employment relationship. Whether the measure will hold up depends on the facts, the care with which the investigation was conducted, the opportunity given to the employee to respond, and the specific reasoning as to why a return to the role is not considered responsible.
Where a suspension from duties is contemplated or has been imposed, it is important to have the situation assessed in legal terms at an early stage, preferably before the first formal interview takes place. The content of the initial statements and the way in which the investigation process is documented may prove significant at a later stage.
Source: Rotterdam District Court, commercial and port division, 24 June 2026, case number C/10/719834 / KG ZA 26-471.
This information was last reviewed on 16 August 2026. Legislation and case law may change. The outcome depends on the specific facts, the nature of the role and the way the investigation was conducted.
