Even hybrid working has its limits: summary dismissal after refusal to return from a “workation”

In a recent ruling, the subdistrict court confirmed that an employee cannot unilaterally decide to continue working from abroad after their holiday, even if it is to take care for a sick parent. In this case, the court ruled that the employer was right to dismiss the employee with immediate effect because he refused to return to the Netherlands. What does this ruling say about hybrid working, reasonable instructions from the employer and the consequences of unpaid leave for the 30% ruling? We describe the facts and implications below.

The facts: holiday became a structural workation
The employee had been working as a software engineer for an IT consultancy firm since 2021. After his holiday in Romania in June 2024, he remained there to care for his sick mother. At that time, he was on “standby”.

Although the employer initially cooperated by granting temporary unpaid leave, the employee refused to return to the Netherlands when the employer insisted on his return with repeated requests and warnings. On 5 February 2025, he again failed to show up at the office. He was summarily dismissed on the same day.

The crux of the matter: can you simply relocate your workplace?
The employee argued that he was entitled to work from Romania. He referred to hybrid working arrangements and the covid pandemic.

The subdistrict court dismissed this argument: neither the employer’s policy nor the employment contract gave him that right. On the contrary, as a so-called “bench worker” (meaning that he had no assignment with a client), he was expected to be physically present at the office in the Netherlands at least two days a week. The idea behind this policy is to find new assignments and promote knowledge exchange within the team. This bench worker policy was not a non-binding wish, but a reasonable instruction within the scope of his job.

Personal circumstances and the assessment framework
In the event of summary dismissal, the court must weigh up all the circumstances of the case: the nature and seriousness of the urgent reason, the personal situation of the employee, the length of service, the manner in which the employee had performed up to that point and the consequences of the dismissal. In this case, the court acknowledged that the employee had difficult personal circumstances, as he wanted to care for his sick mother. However, the court found that this did not outweigh the repeated refusal to comply with a reasonable instruction. Furthermore, the employee had not substantiated why it was impossible for him to work in the Netherlands and why alternative care could not be arranged. The employer had tried to take his situation into account by granting unpaid leave, postponing the wage suspension and offering several options for returning to work. This meant that the personal circumstances, however understandable, could not prevent the dismissal.

Serious consequences: no salary and no 30% ruling, but repayment required
In addition to declaring the dismissal lawful, the subdistrict court also upheld the employer’s counterclaim: the employee must repay over €12.500 net in wrongfully received salary.

This amount consisted partly of wages that were continued to be paid while he was formally on unpaid leave, and partly of a correction due to the expiry of the 30% ruling (expat scheme). The 30% ruling lapsed because the employee had taken unpaid leave, which meant that his annual income fell below the annual income threshold to qualify for the 30% ruling. The scheme therefore did not apply to him retrospectively and the full tax rate had to be applied (instead of 30% tax-free). As a result, the employer had deducted too little tax from the salary and thus paid part of the salary unduly, which it can reclaim from the employee.

Reasonableness is a two-way street
The court emphasised that summary dismissal is a last resort. However, in this case, the employer had made several attempts to reach a solution: through discussions, granting unpaid leave, a wage freeze and termination negotiations. The employee, however, insisted on his own terms. This upset the balance and justified the dismissal.

Conclusion and practical implications: hybrid ≠ borderless
The ruling shows that remote working from abroad is only possible with the employer’s consent. Employers retain their authority to issue instructions as long as they give reasonable assignments and take the employee’s situation into account. The employee’s insistence on his own solution without the employer’s consent can lead to far-reaching consequences, such as summary dismissal and repayment obligations.

Now that many employees may be considering working from a holiday location during the summer period, it is important to realise that hybrid working is not a “right”. Employers would be well advised to communicate clear agreements and policy rules on remote working from abroad. Employees must consult timely and cannot assume that personal circumstances will automatically lead to permission for remote working.