Noord-Holland District Court, 7 July 2026, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:9016
Facts
The employee had been employed as a quality officer at Gourmet Trading since 2018. Her employment contract contained a ban on secondary activities. The company rules also provided that an employee was not permitted to carry out activities during incapacity for work that could hinder their recovery.
In August 2024, the employee reported sick. According to the company doctor, physical limitations meant she was unable to work towards reintegration for a long period. During her incapacity for work, she registered her own business with the Chamber of Commerce, which involved, among other things, operating a parcel collection point.
The employee asked her employer for permission to run this business, but permission was refused. The employer found it difficult to reconcile her being fully unfit for work with her being able to carry out activities for her own business.
In December 2025, the company doctor advised that the employee could start working a few hours of light duties. The employee then stated that she was still unable to work at all. In early January 2026, however, the employer received signals that she was in fact carrying out activities at the parcel collection point.
Statements from various employees showed that the employee received, scanned, moved, and handed over parcels to customers. When confronted with this, she stated that she was only present briefly to open the door for couriers. The employer did not believe this explanation and summarily dismissed her.
The employee asked the subdistrict court to annul the dismissal.
Ruling
The subdistrict court ruled that the summary dismissal was valid.
Using witness statements, WhatsApp messages, and shipping records, the employer had sufficiently demonstrated that the employee regularly carried out activities at the parcel collection point. These activities were not only administrative but also physical in nature. Among other things, she had to receive parcels, put them away, bend, and reach.
According to the subdistrict court, the activities were also of substantial scope. This was at odds with the employee’s statement that she was completely unable to work and could not even start light reintegration duties.
It also weighed heavily that the employer had explicitly refused permission for the secondary activities. In addition, according to the subdistrict court, the employee had not given an honest picture of their nature and scope. In doing so, she had irreparably damaged the employer’s trust.
The argument that the ban on secondary activities was void also failed. To the extent the activities took place outside regular working hours, the employee’s full incapacity for work and serious physical limitations constituted an objective justification for the ban.
The employer had also acted without delay. After receiving the first concrete signals, it immediately launched an investigation, heard the employee, and then proceeded to dismissal.
The employee is not entitled to wages or a transition payment. She must also pay the employer fixed statutory compensation.
The contractual penalty of just over EUR 469,000 claimed by the employer was, however, rejected. The employer had not sufficiently and specifically substantiated on which days the ban on secondary activities had been breached. The mere registration of the business with the Chamber of Commerce was not sufficient for that purpose.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling shows that carrying out secondary activities during illness can justify summary dismissal. This applies in particular where the activities do not fit the stated medical limitations and the employee simultaneously states they are unable to work towards reintegration.
For employers, it is important to carefully investigate suspicions of secondary activities. Gather concrete information, give the employee the opportunity to respond, and then act promptly.
It is also important that a ban on secondary activities outside regular working hours must be objectively justifiable. Incapacity for work can constitute such a justification where the secondary activities may hinder recovery or reintegration.
Do you have questions about secondary activities during illness, reintegration, or summary dismissal? Please feel free to contact one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
