Probationary dismissal and the duty to disclose: lessons from Tata Steel

During a valid probationary period (proeftijd), your employer may end your employment contract with immediate effect, without a notice period and without prior review by the UWV or the subdistrict court (kantonrechter). The main exception: a probationary dismissal that amounts to prohibited discrimination, for example on grounds of religion or political affiliation, can be annulled by the court or lead to fair compensation.

The departure of Donald Pols from Tata Steel Nederland in June 2026 brought both sides of this question into the news. According to press reports and a Tata Steel press release of 2 June 2026, the company ended his new position with immediate effect shortly after he started, stating that not all information of importance had been shared during the appointment procedure; the reports linked this to his past in South Africa, from which Pols has since distanced himself, calling his views at the time wrong. The public sources do not show whether a probationary clause was agreed. Below we explain the legal framework on the assumption that it was.

When may an employer dismiss you during the probationary period?

At any moment while a valid probationary period runs, under Article 7:676 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). The ordinary dismissal protection, with its statutory grounds and notice periods, does not apply.

The probationary period must meet the conditions of Article 7:652 BW. It must be agreed in writing and be the same for both parties. For a permanent contract the maximum is two months. For a fixed-term contract of more than six months but less than two years the maximum is one month; for two years or longer, two months. No probationary period is allowed in a contract of six months or less.

The employer does not have to give a reason on its own initiative. Under Article 7:676(2) BW, it must state the reason in writing if you ask for it. That written reason often becomes the starting point of any dispute.

Where does the prohibition of discrimination apply?

Also during the probationary period. Under Article 5(1) of the Equal Treatment Act (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling, AWGB), distinction is prohibited when offering a job and when entering into and ending an employment relationship, subject to statutory exceptions.

Article 1 AWGB lists the protected grounds, including religion, belief, political affiliation, race, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and civil status. Both direct and indirect distinction are covered. The evidentiary rule in Article 10(1) AWGB helps the employee: if you put forward facts that suggest distinction, the employer must prove it did not act unlawfully.

Under Article 7:681(1)(c) BW, the subdistrict court can annul a termination that breaches a prohibition of discrimination, or award fair compensation (billijke vergoeding) instead. Under Article 7:686a(4) BW you must file the request within two months after the contract ended.

What do recent rulings show?

Courts apply this protection to probationary dismissals in practice. On 28 October 2025 the subdistrict court in The Hague held that dismissing an employee during probation because, on religious grounds, he did not shake hands with a female colleague was indirect distinction without objective justification (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:19487). The court awarded fair compensation of €34,000 gross.

On 26 September 2025 the subdistrict court in Noord-Holland found direct distinction on grounds of religion where a service engineer was dismissed during probation because he wished to pray during the working day, an expression of his religious beliefs at work (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:11085). The dismissal was not valid, and the employee received fixed damages and fair compensation of €15,000 gross.

No published ruling on political affiliation in a probationary dismissal is known to us, but the statutory framework is the same. In the Tata Steel case, the employer relies on withheld information rather than on the views themselves. That shifts the question to the duty to disclose.

Do you have to disclose your past to a new employer?

Not everything. You must answer job-relevant questions truthfully and raise facts that are clearly essential for the position, but sensitive personal data fall in principle within your privacy.

Political opinions are a special category of personal data. Under Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation (AVG/GDPR) and Article 22 of the Dutch GDPR Implementation Act (UAVG), processing them is in principle prohibited. Article 26 UAVG contains only a narrow exception, linked to the requirements that can reasonably be set for certain public functions. An employer may therefore not simply ask about, or record, an applicant’s political views.

Giving incorrect or incomplete information about points essential to the job can still weigh heavily. That follows from the rules on mistake (dwaling) in Article 6:228 BW and from the duty to act as a good employee in Article 7:611 BW, especially after an explicit question or for a role with high integrity requirements.

On 6 May 2026 the subdistrict court in Midden-Nederland upheld the summary dismissal of an employee who, when asked directly at the interview, had concealed chronic heart failure and debt-collection proceedings (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:2453). The court added, in passing, that the employer’s out-of-court annulment of the contract for mistake or fraud would also have been valid. The decisive factors were the direct questions and the relevance of the facts for the job.

Does the employer have to investigate the applicant?

To some extent. An employer that skips a reasonable check will find it harder to rely on mistake, because under Article 6:228(2) BW a mistake that is the employer’s own fault remains for its account.

That duty has limits. On 9 March 2026 the subdistrict court in Midden-Nederland refused to set aside a probationary dismissal that followed information about the employee’s business past, found in a client’s screening after she had started (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:1077). The court called the employer’s choice not to search for candidates online a weak initial assessment, but not an abuse of the probationary power or a breach of good employership.

For senior and public-facing roles, background screening within the limits of the GDPR has become common practice. The more senior the role, the harder it is for an employer to argue that no enquiry was needed. Still, the more clearly a fact is job-relevant and the more specifically it was asked about, the more heavily its concealment weighs against the employee.

What should you check as an employee?

• Was the probationary period agreed in writing, and does its length stay within the maximum of Article 7:652 BW?
• Did you ask the employer for the reason for dismissal in writing under Article 7:676(2) BW?
• Does the reason given point to a protected ground, such as religion or political affiliation, or can you show facts that suggest it?
• Did you answer every direct interview question truthfully, and which job-relevant facts did you not mention?
• Have you noted the two-month deadline for a request to the subdistrict court?

What should you check as an employer?

• Is the probationary clause valid: written, equal for both parties and within the statutory maximum?
• Have you recorded which information is essential for the position and asked about it explicitly?
• Does your screening respect the GDPR and the ban on processing political opinions?
• Can you substantiate a concrete, non-discriminatory reason for the dismissal with documents?
• Do you give the reason in writing promptly when the employee asks for it?

What can we do for you with probationary dismissal and the duty to disclose?

Our dismissal lawyers act for employees and employers in probationary-period disputes. See also our guide on being dismissed during the probationary period before starting the job.

• We check whether the probationary clause is valid under Article 7:652 BW.
• We request the written reason for dismissal and assess it against the Equal Treatment Act.
• We file a request with the subdistrict court for annulment or fair compensation within the two-month deadline.
• We draft interview questions and screening procedures that comply with the GDPR.
• We assess whether an employer can rely on mistake or fraud after concealed information comes to light.

Summary

• During a valid probationary period either party may end the contract with immediate effect (Article 7:676 BW).
• A probationary dismissal based on religion, political affiliation or another protected ground can be annulled or lead to fair compensation (Article 7:681 BW).
• You must answer job-relevant questions truthfully, but you need not volunteer sensitive personal data such as political opinions.
• An employer that does not investigate carries more of the risk of a mistake, but concealment of an essential fact still weighs heavily.
• The request to the subdistrict court must be filed within two months.

Frequently asked questions