27 August 2025
Does your employer say that you have been dismissed due to organizational changes? Does this mean your position is no longer available?
Often, in such cases, employers offer a settlement agreement to conclude the employment relationship properly. However, before your employer can dismiss you on these grounds, it must be investigated whether you can be redeployed within the organization. How far does this obligation go?
Employers are required to actively explore internal redeployment opportunities when terminating an employment contract, for example, due to a reorganization. Employers within an international group are also obligated to investigate whether suitable positions are available at foreign branches for the employee, not just within the Netherlands. It is crucial for employers to engage in discussions with the employee regarding potential redeployment options.
Sometimes, a court rules that the employer has not made sufficient efforts to redeploy the employee if no vacancies were discussed during a redeployment meeting and it was incorrectly assumed that the employee was unwilling to work at an international location. This was also the case in the example below.
The case involved an employee who was part of the IT team. The employer is part of a global corporation with 36 companies spread across 29 countries. The employee primarily worked from home for other entities within the group. The employer submitted a dismissal request to the UWV, claiming that the employee’s position had become redundant due to economic circumstances. The UWV rejected the request, stating that the employer had not sufficiently demonstrated that the position had permanently ceased to exist.
The employer then went to the court, which dissolved the employment contract. The employee appealed, arguing that his position had not ceased to exist and that the employer had not made adequate efforts to redeploy him.
The higher court ruled that the employer should have investigated whether suitable positions were available within the company and that other job openings within the group should also have been considered in this assessment. The employer claimed to have implemented a hiring freeze, but the court determined that this did not nullify the legal obligation to redeploy.
Moreover, the employer did not conduct a redeployment meeting with the employee, nor was there any evidence that suitable positions had been offered to him. The employer incorrectly assumed that the employee was unwilling to work abroad, based on outdated information. The court emphasized that it was the employer’s responsibility to collaborate with the employee to identify which vacancies might be suitable.
The court concluded that the employer had fallen short in its redeployment efforts and that the subdistrict court had wrongly dissolved the employment contract. The employee was awarded a fair compensation.
For employers, it is crucial to actively investigate redeployment opportunities when terminating an employment contract due to reorganization. This applies to employers within an international group as well, who must also consider suitable positions at foreign branches. It is not enough to merely inform the employee of available vacancies; there must be active discussions that take into account the personal circumstances of the employee.
If you have any questions about this topic, please feel free to contact us. We are happy to assist you further.
