THE BOTTOM LINE
- Financial Risk: Failing to meet strict re-integration deadlines for a long-term sick employee can result in the UWV extending your wage payment liability by up to a full year.
- Process is Paramount: The “second track” re-integration process (finding external employment) must be initiated within six weeks of the employee’s one-year sickness evaluation if a return to your company is not feasible. Delays are not tolerated.
- Follow Your Advisor’s Lead: Ignoring your own company doctor’s advice to explore re-integration options is a critical misstep. A court is unlikely to accept an employer’s own assessment of an employee’s capacity over that of the appointed medical expert.
THE DETAILS
A recent ruling from the District Court of Overijssel serves as a stark reminder of the costly consequences of procedural missteps in Dutch long-term sickness cases. The court upheld a 52-week wage sanction imposed by the UWV (the Dutch Employee Insurance Agency) on an employer, Buurtdiensten Nederland B.V. The company was found to have failed in its re-integration duties for an employee who had been on sick leave for over a year. The core of the issue was not a dispute over the employee’s medical condition, but a crucial delay in starting the search for suitable work at another company, known as “second track” re-integration.
The court’s decision hinged on a clear and non-negotiable timeline. According to established guidelines (the Werkwijzer Poortwachter), if it becomes clear that an employee cannot return to their role within the company, the employer must start the “second track” process within six weeks of the first-year sickness evaluation. In this case, the company doctor advised initiating this process in late March 2023. However, the employer delayed, only formally starting the intake process in late June 2023—well past the deadline. The court found this delay constituted an insufficient re-integration effort for which the employer had no valid excuse.
The employer argued that the UWV should have engaged its own insurance doctor to assess the employee’s fluctuating health and limited capacity. The court swiftly dismissed this argument. It clarified that the UWV is entitled to rely on the reports of the employer’s own company doctor. Since the company doctor had consistently stated that the employee had “usable capacity” and had explicitly recommended starting the “second track”, there was no medical ambiguity that required a second opinion from the UWV. The failure was a clear-cut procedural breach, making the costly wage sanction entirely justified.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Overijssel
