Noord-Holland District Court, 20 May 2026, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:5696
Facts
The employee had been employed by the employer as a shop assistant since 1 September 2025. She had a fixed-term employment contract that would end by operation of law on 31 March 2026.
On 22 December 2025, the employee reported sick.
After her sick leave, a dispute arose about her incapacity for work. The employer doubted whether the employee was genuinely ill, partly because it discovered that the employee was staying in Turkey during her illness.
The employer decided to stop paying wages from January 2026 onwards. The employee was asked to report to the employer to resume her duties or explain her situation.
A company doctor or occupational health service was not engaged, however, to assess whether the employee was genuinely unfit for work.
The employee argued that the wage suspension was unjustified. In her view, the employer was not entitled to decide for itself whether or not she was ill and should have engaged a company doctor.
It later also emerged that the employee had married in Turkey in February 2026. According to the employer, this was relevant to the question of whether she had enjoyed a holiday during her illness. The employee disputed this, stating that she was staying in Turkey for medical reasons and had not taken any holiday days for her wedding.
The employee ultimately went to the subdistrict court and claimed, among other things, payment of her outstanding wages for January, February, and March 2026.
Ruling
The subdistrict court ruled that the employer had wrongly failed to pay the employee’s wages.
The fact that an employee stays abroad during illness does not automatically mean that employee was not ill.
The employer doubted the sick leave partly because the employee was staying in Turkey. According to the subdistrict court, however, it is not for the employer to determine for itself whether an employee is genuinely unfit for work. Even where there are reasons to doubt a sick leave, the medical assessment must be left to a company doctor or occupational health service.
In this case, the employer had a regular company doctor available but had not engaged them to examine the employee. According to the subdistrict court, the employer should have done so as soon as possible precisely because it doubted the employee’s illness.
Because no medical assessment had taken place, it had to be assumed that the employee had been unfit for work from her sick leave on 22 December 2025 onwards, and that this remained the case until the end of her employment. The employer therefore still had to pay wages for January, February, and March 2026.
What does this mean for employers?
An employee staying abroad during illness is not automatically fit for work. A holiday or stay abroad can also coincide with incapacity for work.
If an employer doubts a sick leave, it may not make its own medical judgement about it. The assessment of whether an employee is unfit for work lies with the company doctor or occupational health service. This also applies where the employee’s conduct gives cause for doubt, for example because they travel abroad while ill.
It is, however, important to distinguish between illness and holiday. If a sick employee genuinely takes holiday leave, holiday days cannot in principle be deducted for this unless the employee agrees. Make clear arrangements about this in advance and, where necessary, engage the company doctor to assess whether the trip affects recovery or reintegration.
For employers, the key lesson is therefore this: if in doubt about illness during a stay abroad, do not draw your own medical conclusions, but have the company doctor assess what the employee can and cannot do.
Do you have questions about holiday during illness, an employee travelling abroad while ill, deducting holiday days, or continued payment of wages during illness? Please contact one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
