Actueel

​Arlette Putker acted for a care organization. Termination of an employment contract with a sick employee. Low severance payment because of frequent sickness absence.

Investigation of an employee that is suspected of theft or fictitious sickness always leads to discussions about breach of privacy with respect to the employee involved.​

Investigation by an employer because of suspected misconduct on the part of the employee invariably leads to discussions on breach of privacy. If an employer suspects an employee of misconduct, the employer is entitled to perform an investigation and sometimes the proof is only ‘made tangible’ by engaging an investigation agency. Relying on the protection of privacy provides no alibi if there is manifest misconduct.​

Employers are entitled to engage a detective or an external investigation agency on suspected misconduct of employees. This article highlights the legal scope of such investigation and provides a checklist for employers.

​Arlette Putker acted for an orchestra. Application made to terminate employment contract after two years of sickness. Comparable review as in the 681 proceedings. No compensation despite 27 years of service.

Liesbeth Franx acted for a managing pharmacist. Employer allowed the dispute to escalate, C=1.5 instead of C=2 because the employee should easily be able to find new employment.

​The purpose of this act is to encourage the rehabilitation and employment of persons who, because of health reasons, have encountered difficulties in finding or keeping jobs. The Disability (Rehabilitation) Act has been abolished but the provisions of this act have been included in the Work and Income (Capacity for Work) Act.