When reintegration stalls or an employer wants to know if they are on the right track with reintegration, they can request a so-called ‘expert opinion’ from UWV. An expert opinion is also required for dismissal of a sick employee who does not sufficiently cooperate with reintegration. Great value is attached to the expert opinion by employers, employees and also by judges. But what happens when UWV issues an incorrect opinion?
Sick Employee Does not Cooperate
This question was central to a recent ruling by the Amsterdam District Court. This case involved a sick ING employee who failed to fulfill his reintegration obligations. He repeatedly failed to show up at the occupational physician, was often unreachable and had already failed to implement the start and development of reintegration several times. For this reason, ING stopped paying the employee’s wages and wanted to ask the court to terminate the employee’s employment contract.
Expert Opinion from UWV
The law stipulates that an employer requesting termination in case an employee does not cooperate with reintegration, in principle needs an expert opinion from UWV confirming this. ING therefore requested this expert opinion. However, UWV ruled that the employee had sufficiently cooperated with reintegration. Following this negative expert opinion, ING decided to negotiate with the employee about terminating the employment contract and a settlement agreement was also concluded. It was agreed that ING would pay the employee the transition compensation and part of the unpaid wages.
Since ING doubted the correctness of the expert opinion, they filed a complaint with UWV. The complaints ambassador ruled that the expert opinion did not meet quality requirements. However, UWV subsequently refused to compensate for damages. This therefore led to legal proceedings. At the Amsterdam District Court, ING claimed compensation from UWV equal to the transition compensation paid to the employee and the wages paid. ING stated that with a correct expert opinion, they would have continued the termination procedure whereby ING, due to the employee’s seriously culpable conduct, would not owe any transition compensation or back pay.
UWV Must Pay Compensation
The District Court ruled that UWV acted unlawfully in this case by reaching a defective expert opinion. Since it was very likely that careful investigation by UWV would have led to a different expert opinion, the causal relationship between UWV’s actions and ING’s damages was also established. However, the District Court did not award the full compensation. After all, ING had chosen to conclude the settlement agreement, while they could have also made an attempt with the court. The judge therefore ruled that UWV had to pay 40% of the damages, which resulted in UWV having to pay approximately €73,000 to ING.
If UWV makes errors, it can therefore make sense to pursue compensation from UWV, as this ruling proves.
Do you have questions or would you like to respond? Please feel free to contact us.
The utmost care has been taken in preparing this blog. However, it only describes some main points and does not aim to be complete. Therefore, no rights can be derived from this blog.
