20 July 2020

Keep paying wages after suspension?

By Seliz Demirci

In principle, until 1 January 2020, the employer was not required to pay wages if the employee had not performed any work.

It was then up to the employee to demonstrate that they were entitled to wages. The new main rule is: no work, yet wages, unless the non-performance of work is for the expense and at the risk of the employee. An interesting practical question: should an employer continue paying wages to an employee who has been placed on inactive duty? The subdistrict court recently commented on this.

The employee in question had gone through a process to improve his functioning. After completing this process, the employer informed the employee that they no longer had any confidence in him. The employer proposed to terminate the collaboration. The employee was then released from work with pay. The employee and employer subsequently discussed termination of the employment contract, but this did not lead to any result. The employee asked the employer to provide a clear explanation for the reason for terminating the employment contract and for placing him on inactive duty.

The employer then suggested an interview. The employee declined this call and again asked for an adequate response. A day later, the employer stopped paying the employee wages. The reason for this was that the employee had refused to start the conversation.

Room for deviation

After the payment of wages stopped, the employee went to court and demanded payment of his salary. According to the employee, it was at the expense and risk of the employer that the employee had lost work. The employee stated that he had been wrongfully suspended and that the employer had not responded to repeated requests for explanations about the alleged malfunctioning.

The employer, in turn, believed that the non-payment of wages was justified because, despite calls and warnings, the employee had refused to enter into a conversation. According to the employer, this refusal meant that it should be for the employee’s account that no work was performed.

The judge first established that there may be room to deviate from the main rule “no work, yet wages”.

In addition, the judge agreed with the employer that an employee – even during inactivity – can reasonably be expected to enter into a conversation with the employer in order to resolve the work conflict. On the other hand, it was understandable that the employee first wanted clarification about the reason for the suspension.

Given that it was the employer who had suspended the employee, the judge ruled that the inactivity should be for the account of the employer. Although both parties could be blamed, the employer could not evade his obligation to pay wages in this case.

Paying wages remains the starting point for inactivity

A suspension appears to be in the employer’s risk sphere, and is therefore reasonably for their account. In principle, the employee retains the right to wages during a suspension or inactivity. The above statement shows that continued payment of wages can also apply if the employer has good reasons to put the employee on idle and this inactivity is due to the employee. The starting point is “right to work”. The employer cannot simply withdraw from continued payment of wages, even if the employee’s behaviour provides grounds for suspension.

Unworkable

Therefore, only suspend an employee if serious reason exists and if the employee’s return would lead to an unworkable situation. Placing employees on inactive duty should be done with caution. After all, in principle the employer will have to continue to pay the salary of the suspended employee regardless.

However, the law leaves room for deviation from this principle. If the grounds for inactive duty must reasonably be borne by the employee (for example in the event of theft), the employer is not (or no longer) obliged to continue paying the wages. Whether an employer is allowed to stop paying a suspended employee will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

More information?

Do you have a question? Please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

District Court of North Holland May 27, 2020, ECLI (abbreviated): 4182

 

This article originally appeared in Rendement.

Seliz Demirci

Lawyer

‘Clear Communication About Problems and Solutions’

Related blogs

Previous slide
Next slide

16 July 2025

Business closure: what to do with employees?

The company is shutting down. This may be due to poor financial performance or because the sole owner is seriously ill or has passed away. However, ceasing operations and closing the doors does not mean that employment contracts with staff automatically end. So how does this work?

Read more

Read more about

10 July 2025

Implications of the Uber-ruling for companies employing freelancers

Is a freelancer an employee or a contractor? The distinction carries major implications for legal protection, as well as financial and tax consequences.

Read more

Read more about

3 July 2025

Definitely not good employment practice

The Amsterdam Cantonal Court recently issued a ruling that provides insight into court procedures for terminating an employment contract. The decision underscores the importance for employers to handle termination requests with care.

Read more

Read more about

23 June 2025

Can you dismiss a ‘benchwarmer’?

A "benchwarmer" is an employee who has little to no work and, as a result, is not productive enough.

Read more

Read more about

16 June 2025

When Embassy’s enter into an employment contract in the Netherlands

When an embassy in the Netherlands enters into an employment contract with an employee, it may expect that the laws of its home country will apply. However, this is often not the case.

Read more

Read more about
All articles