A Dutch court upheld immediate dismissal, but the business lesson is disciplined judgment rather than workplace diagnosis.
The roster is already strained. One employee has reported sick. Colleagues carry extra work, wages continue and customers still expect delivery. Then the owner sees photographs of the employee completing a demanding Hyrox competition.
Anger is an understandable first response. If someone can run, lift and compete at that level, how can that person be unable to work? For a small employer, the question is more than emotional. It touches the roster, payroll, customer promises and trust inside the team.
Dutch employment law gives the owner a narrower task. Private activity may raise a serious employment question. Management must still separate medical capacity from conduct, communication and trust.
That distinction shaped a September 2026 judgment from the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant.
What the court decided
The employee had reported sick during an already tense employment relationship. She said she had glandular fever, became tired after minor exertion, slept extensively during the day and could not work. On 27 March 2026, she took part in a Hyrox event. The employer learned about it on 1 April and discussed it with her the next day.
When confronted, the employee said that sport was healthy. The court considered that response alongside her earlier statements, the employment history and previous efforts to repair trust. It upheld the immediate dismissal because the combined circumstances created an urgent reason to end the employment contract.
The event itself was not the whole case. The employee’s statements, later conduct and response had damaged the relationship to the point where continued employment was no longer reasonable. The employer acted promptly, heard her position and stated the reason clearly in the dismissal letter.
Articles 7:677 and 7:678 of the Dutch Civil Code set a demanding threshold. An employer needs an urgent reason that makes continued employment unreasonable and must communicate that reason promptly. The court assesses the complete circumstances of each case.
The financial outcome deserves equal attention. The employee did not receive fair compensation, but she did receive a transition payment and back pay. The employer received reduced fixed compensation of €2,106 gross. A valid dismissal can still leave financial obligations behind.
The boundary management must respect
Employees generally receive protection against dismissal during the first two years of sickness. That protection carries weight. An urgent reason or a failure to cooperate with reintegration can create a separate employment-law route.
The difficult question is who decides what.
The occupational physician or occupational health service assesses functional capacity and restrictions. Management deals with work, communication, attendance arrangements, suitable duties, agreed actions and conduct. When capacity or suitable work remains contested, UWV can issue a deskundigenoordeel, an advisory expert opinion.
Medical information stays with the occupational physician or occupational health service. UWV does not share an employee’s medical information with the employer during the deskundigenoordeel process. Employer-facing occupational-health opinions must also exclude diagnoses and other privacy-sensitive details.
This division is practical governance, not administrative ceremony. It stops understandable frustration from becoming an amateur medical judgment. It also keeps private health information out of payroll messages, management chats and informal team discussions.
The company can still ask direct questions. What was communicated? Which reintegration arrangements applied? Does observed conduct conflict with statements or commitments? What explanation followed? Those are employment questions. Medical capacity belongs with the professional who assesses it.
One absence can fill the whole room
CBS recorded a provisional sickness-absence rate of 5.4% across the Dutch economy in the second quarter of 2026. The rate was 2.5% among employers with one to ten workers and 4.7% among those with ten to one hundred.
For the smallest firms, the lower aggregate rate offers limited relief. One person can represent a fifth of the workforce. A disputed absence can alter opening hours, postpone customer work and send the owner back onto the floor. Colleagues often see only fragments of the story, while the owner carries the operational pressure.
Employers generally continue paying at least 70% of gross wages during sickness, potentially for up to 104 weeks. A collective agreement or contract may provide more favourable terms. Replacement costs, overtime, delayed invoices and management time soon make a quick exit look tempting.
Cash pressure is a poor substitute for legal reasoning.
Return to the owner looking at those Hyrox images. The useful next move is to preserve the observation, compare it with recorded communications, ask for an explanation and keep the occupational-health process moving. A dispute about capacity belongs on the professional route.
Records before conclusions
UWV describes reintegration as a joint responsibility. The plan of action follows the occupational physician’s problem analysis and should be prepared within two weeks. Employer and employee should discuss progress at least every six weeks and adjust the plan where needed.
For a small employer, this record is more than paperwork for a distant authority. It is the operating history of the absence. It shows what suitable work was considered, who agreed to what, where communication failed and whether both sides kept the process moving.
The harder lesson is simple. A business must account for how it reached a decision, not merely how convincing that decision feels. An employer may have good reason to question an inconsistency and still choose the wrong route.
Sickness protection does not require management to ignore unreliable statements or serious breaches of trust. It requires discipline in the way the company responds.
Illness is not misconduct. Private sport does not settle contractual work capacity. A credible contradiction can still matter. Trust can carry legal weight when facts, timing, explanation and proportionality support the conclusion.
For a small company, that is the workable standard: let doctors assess health, let managers manage conduct, and let the record explain why the business acted.
If sickness absence has become a question of conduct or trust, seek advice before choosing the legal route.
The data, sourcing, and analysis behind this article were conducted by Linda Pavan Geraedts. AI was not used to identify sources, build the factual basis, or produce the analytical judgment contained here. AI was used only as a drafting aid. The final English text was personally reviewed, edited, and approved by Linda Pavan Geraedts before publication.
References
- Ontslag op staande voet terecht voor ziekgemelde werknemer die meedoet aan Hyrox · Salaris Vanmorgen
- Rechtspraak - Verified court case: immediate dismissal during sickness absence
- Wettenbank - Legal threshold for summary dismissal
- Rijksoverheid - Sickness absence does not remove all dismissal routes
- UWV - Reintegration is a joint, documented process
- UWV - Medical boundary and disagreement over work capacity
- UWV - Privacy in the sickness file
- CBS - Current sickness-absence pressure for small employers
