Column ruling: When working fewer hours, right to transition compensation

Last year (on September 14, 2018), the Supreme Court answered the question of whether an employee, who as a result of long-term incapacity for work (or due to business economic reasons) must henceforth settle for a shorter working time, is entitled to a transitional allowance over that part for which he/she is "fired. The Supreme Court's answer was: yes, that right exists in the event of a drastic adjustment, in which, moreover, it does not matter how exactly the reduction of working hours is shaped (e.g., by partial dismissal or a party agreement).

Transition compensation when salary is reduced?

This - far-reaching - judgment by our highest court raised many new questions, including the question of what happens if someone does not lose working hours but salary as a result of the aforementioned causes. And what about the right to partial transitional compensation if working hours or salary are reduced due to other reasons, for example in the case of demotion?

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal recently asked the Supreme Court the (preliminary) question to what extent a reduction of salary (and thus not of working hours) as a result of reinstatement in lower-paid, suitable work after long-term occupational disability entitles the employee to a proportionate part of the transition allowance. For although in that situation there is no partial termination of the employment contract, there is a termination of the agreements in place up to that point regarding the employee's position and salary. So why then would there be no right to compensation?

What is the Supreme Court getting at?

If the Supreme Court also answers this question in the affirmative, then the floodgates seem to be off the hook and it can be well defended that all drastic changes in working hours and in salary in principle lead to an entitlement to a transition allowance. If the answer is in the negative, it is a bit strange: one disabled employee would receive compensation, but not the other, while both effectively have to give up salary.

Would the Supreme Court have realized what it was getting into with its Column ruling? We will know in the spring. We will, of course, keep you informed.