10 September 2025
Employment contracts can end in various ways. For example, a fixed-term employment contract often referred to as a “temporary contract” expires on the agreed date.
An employer and employee may also mutually agree to terminate the employment contract. In a recent case before the Subdistrict Court of Amsterdam, the parties disputed which of these two scenarios had actually occurred.
The case involved an employee whose temporary contract was set to end on 31 October 2023. A few months earlier, the employer informed her that her contract would not be renewed.
That same day, the employer sent an email confirming that the employee was released from her duties. The email also stated that if she found another job before the end date, she could start working there, and the current employment contract would end earlier.
Beneath this message, the employer requested a “signature for receipt” via the Validsign signing platform, which the employee provided. On 1 October 2023, she started working elsewhere.
The employer argued before the court that both parties had entered into an agreement, which the employee had accepted via her Validsign signature. Therefore, the employer claimed, the employee was not entitled to salary for October 2023, as the employment contract had already ended.
The judge disagreed, ruling that no agreement had been concluded based solely on the employee’s Validsign signature. Such a signature does not sufficiently qualify as clear and unambiguous consent to terminate the employment contract—something case law requires in a declaration from the employee. Moreover, the employer had clearly stated in the email that the employee would be released from work until 31 October 2023 and would continue to receive salary until that date. In other words, the employee was not required to work but was still entitled to salary until the end of her employment.
A smarter move by the employer would have been to invoke a clause prohibiting secondary employment—if such a clause was agreed upon between the parties. This would, however, require a compelling business interest to justify the prohibition. What would have been even better was if the employer had made a formal termination offer, properly informed the employee, sought legal advice if necessary, and reached a clear and unambiguous agreement.
Amsterdam Subdistrict Court, 11 February 2025, ECLI (summary): 779
If you have questions about this blog or would like legal advice on a similar matter, feel free to contact us.
This article was written for Rendement.
