Amsterdam District Court, 3 June 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:5663
Facts
The employee had been employed by MacBlauw Facility B.V., a McDonald’s franchisee, since March 2022.
Under the employer’s house rules, holiday leave had to be requested at least fourteen days in advance. On 12 December 2025, the employee requested leave for the period from 25 December 2025 up to and including 5 January 2026. The request was refused because it had been submitted too late, and also because it concerned the busy Christmas and New Year period.
The employee then said he had only been able to submit the request late because he had recently received a new residence document. At the same time, he informed the employer that he had decided to go on holiday from 23 December 2025 up to and including 7 January 2026. He therefore left despite the refusal.
After his return, a conversation took place about the holiday and the employee’s conduct. According to the employer, this conversation created an unworkable situation. The employer therefore decided to transfer the employee to a nearby branch.
The employee objected to the transfer and subsequently did not show up at his new workplace. He received several official warnings, each stating that summary dismissal could follow if he continued to refuse to come to work.
Even after the employer had given him two final chances, the employee did not show up. On 6 February 2026, he was summarily dismissed for prolonged and repeated absence.
The employee asked the subdistrict court to annul the dismissal. He also requested, among other things, payment of wages, reinstatement, a statutory transition payment, and fair compensation.
Ruling
The subdistrict court ruled that the summary dismissal was valid.
The unauthorised holiday itself was not the reason for the summary dismissal. The employer had based the dismissal on the employee’s persistent refusal to resume work after his transfer.
The holiday was, however, relevant according to the subdistrict court, as it was the reason for the conversation and the subsequent transfer.
The employer was entitled to address the employee’s conduct. He had requested his holiday later than the house rules required, and he knew his request concerned the busy Christmas and New Year period. After the request was refused, he stated, without any relevant substantive objection, that he would go on holiday regardless.
During the conversation after his return, the employee was confronted with his unauthorised holiday and his attitude towards his supervisor. According to the subdistrict court, the employer then had sufficiently compelling reasons to transfer him to a nearby branch.
If the employee disagreed with the transfer, he could have taken legal action against it. He was not entitled to simply disregard the instruction to work at the other branch.
The employee nevertheless kept refusing to show up, even after the employer had given him several official warnings and two final chances. According to the subdistrict court, this persistent refusal to work constituted an urgent cause for summary dismissal.
The request to annul the dismissal was therefore refused. The employee was also not awarded fair compensation. Because his deliberate and structural refusal to work was seriously culpable, he was likewise not entitled to a transition payment.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling shows that an employee cannot go on holiday without risk once a leave request has been explicitly refused. Particularly during a busy period, an employee can be expected to take the applicable request deadlines and the employer’s organisational interests into account.
A refused holiday request does not, however, automatically mean that a subsequent summary dismissal is valid. Where a dismissal is based directly on the employee taking leave anyway, it must also be assessed whether the employer was right to refuse the leave in the first place.
In this case, the holiday itself was not the direct ground for dismissal. It led to a conversation and, subsequently, to a transfer. The dismissal only followed after the employee had, for a prolonged period, refused to show up at the new workplace despite several clear warnings.
Employers would therefore do well to record holiday requests and any refusals in writing. State why the leave cannot be granted, for example because of a late request, understaffing, or an exceptionally busy period.
If an employee leaves anyway despite a refusal, it is advisable to first have a conversation with them upon their return and give them the opportunity to explain their conduct. Depending on the circumstances, a warning, another measure, or clear working arrangements may then be appropriate.
If an employee subsequently continues to ignore reasonable instructions and, despite repeated warnings, does not show up for work, this can ultimately constitute an urgent cause for summary dismissal.
Do you have questions about holiday requests, refusing leave, refusal to work, transfers, or summary dismissal? Please contact one of our employment lawyers.
