Midden-Nederland District Court, 7 October 2025, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:5210.
The Midden-Nederland subdistrict court recently ruled in summary proceedings between an employee and his employer, KPN. The case revolved around whether KPN was obliged to let the employee return to his former role after recovering from illness, given that the role had ceased to exist during his illness. The subdistrict court ruled that KPN did not have to do so.
Facts
The employee, employed by KPN since 1999, carried out manual checks on network administration in connection with the rollout of fibre-optic cable. He fell ill in October 2023. During his reintegration, he carried out adapted work in a different department.
As of 1 January 2025, however, his role ceased to exist as a result of a reorganisation. The work was partly automated and partly absorbed into other, higher-level roles. The employee was declared redundant. He filed a complaint against this decision with KPN’s internal complaints committee, which declared the complaint unfounded.
When the employee had fully recovered in September 2025, he claimed in summary proceedings that KPN should allow him to return to his former duties.
Ruling of the subdistrict court
The subdistrict court ruled that although the employee had an urgent interest in his request to return to work, the claim was refused. According to the court, KPN had valid reasons not to let the employee return to his former role. The role no longer existed, because the work had disappeared due to a reorganisation and automation. The works council had been involved, and there was no sham arrangement. In addition, there was a disrupted working relationship with the supervisor, which had earlier contributed to the employee’s sick leave. KPN was entitled to want to prevent a repeat of that situation. Because the role no longer actually existed and resuming it would lead to an unworkable situation, the subdistrict court refused the claim.
Conclusion: a careful reorganisation protects the employer
This ruling makes clear that an employer who carefully carries out a reorganisation and follows the applicable rules is not obliged to reinstate an employee in a role that no longer exists, even after recovery from illness. It is important here that the employer can properly substantiate the reorganisation, for example with works council advice and internal documents, and can demonstrate that roles have genuinely been abolished or changed. The employer must also take the working relationship and its reintegration obligations into account. For employees, a complaint or claim only has a chance of success if they can make it plausible that the reorganisation was not genuine or was carried out carelessly.
Failing to carry out a reorganisation properly, or at all, can lead to conflicts with employees, prolonged proceedings, and reputational damage for the employer. Do you have questions about reorganisations, redundancy, or reintegration after illness? Please feel free to contact our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
