Dismissal sought for a disrupted relationship: prepare a targeted defence

Dismissal sought for a disrupted relationship: prepare a targeted defence

Your employer saying trust is lost does not itself end the contract. In a dissolution petition based on disrupted working relations, the subdistrict court assesses the statutory ground and circumstances. Ask which relationship is supposedly unworkable, what repair was attempted and how redeployment is addressed. Clarify whether you want to stay and which financial requests need assessment if dissolution nevertheless follows.

Alleged loss of trust does not automatically dissolve employment.

Being blameless in the conflict does not itself exclude dissolution.

Repair, redeployment and possible compensation are separate questions.

Read the petition, not just the announcement

Keep the hearing notice, full petition and exhibits. Is disruption the main ground, alternative ground or part of a combination? Identify what the employer asks and which facts support it. An invitation to discuss a settlement agreement is a different stage from pending proceedings. When summoned, do not wait only for another HR meeting.

The [workplace conflict guide](guide:arbeidsconflict) covers practical communication; this guide addresses a specific dissolution petition. For each passage identify what you acknowledge, dispute or cannot check yet. Avoid general character judgments about your manager; cite arrangements and events capable of changing the legal picture.

Identify which cooperation is genuinely failing

Article 7:669 addresses disruption such that the employer cannot reasonably be expected to continue employment. Ask with whom it exists, how it obstructs work and since when. Conflict with one person need not mean organisation-wide unworkability, but the answer depends on actual work and people’s roles.

Create a timeline of the cause, responses and later contacts. Include occasions when cooperation remained possible. One friendly email does not automatically prove recovery; conversely, “breach of trust” does not prove continuation impossible. Assess allegations, duration and seriousness in context, including actual attempts by employer and employee.

Show repair efforts and mediation concretely

Which discussions, support or work arrangements were proposed and carried out? Identify each party’s action and its result. A single contact person or revised task allocation can be a concrete alternative. Keep offers and replies even where unsuccessful. A ritual conversation with a predetermined outcome differs from genuine exploration.

[Conflict mediation](guide:mediation-arbeidsconflict) may help, but is neither an automatic duty nor a guaranteed answer in every case. Explain conditions needed and why participation or an alternative was appropriate or not. Confidential mediation documents need care. Do not disclose everything merely to prove cooperation; use information in line with agreed rules.

Blame does not alone decide dissolution

In 2018 the Supreme Court held that employee fault is not required for this ground. Employer blame also does not itself prevent dissolution, although its extent can matter. Do not rely solely on “it is the employer’s fault”; address legal ground, evidence, repair and whether continuation genuinely cannot be required.

Serious employer culpability can raise a separate compensation issue. The required causal link with dissolution must be examined; every careless act does not automatically yield equitable compensation. Distinguish [underperformance](guide:disfunctioneren): performance criticism and relationship disruption are different grounds. Ask which facts belong to which and do not ignore an incorrect performance file merely because a new label is used.

Ask what redeployment was investigated

Even with disrupted relations, statutory redeployment remains relevant: within a reasonable time, with training where necessary, unless impossible or unreasonable. The Supreme Court confirmed that test. Ask about actual roles, locations and organisational boundaries. A conflict with the direct manager does not automatically rule out every other position.

Explain skills, experience and alternatives without automatically accepting any offer. Request written duties and conditions and respond substantively. Health limits and any dismissal prohibition need separate assessment; conflict does not prove absence of illness. Handle medical information through the proper expert and record appropriate work-related data for proceedings.

File defence and own requests on time

The judiciary states that written defence must reach court and employer at least five days before the hearing in this procedure. Also read the actual notice and current procedural instructions. Seek help early where papers are missing; awaiting the employer is no safe reason to miss the hearing. Use the [case-file builder](tool:dossier-builder) for a short timeline, numbered exhibits and clear objective.

A lawyer is not mandatory in the subdistrict court. Use [finding a lawyer](tool:advocaat-zoeken) to prepare assistance with defence and own requests if dissolution follows. Discuss wages, end date, transition pay, possible equitable compensation and costs separately. Continue monitoring your [general dismissal position](guide:ontslag) and income. Negotiation, mediation and court proceedings each have their own arrangements and deadlines.

Fictional example: conflict with one manager

An employee receives a dissolution petition citing lost trust with her manager. She collects arrangements showing a planning dispute and identifies another possible department. Her adviser examines not only blame but seriousness, repair and actual redeployment. She files defence in time and discusses own requests if the court nevertheless dissolves. No outcome is certain: another department may lack a suitable vacancy or disruption may be broader. The example shows why a specific alternative should be examined instead of merely saying the manager is wrong.

Hearing notice, petition and complete exhibits.

Conflict timeline and concrete cooperation effects.

Repair offers, work arrangements and permitted mediation information.

Redeployment options, skills and responses.

Response to disputed passages and alleged employer blame.

Timely defence, desired result and separate financial requests.

Must I be at fault for dismissal on this ground?

No. The Supreme Court does not require employee blame. The overall disruption, interests and redeployment must be assessed.

Does employer blame always prevent dissolution?

No. It does not automatically exclude dissolution but can affect balancing and a separate compensation issue.

Must mediation always have occurred?

There is no universal guarantee or fixed rule for every case. Actual repair attempts and circumstances matter. Explain why a process or alternative was appropriate.

Can I want to stay while requesting compensation?

An adviser can formulate appropriate conditional or additional requests. Clarify your primary aim and the scenario if dissolution follows; financial requests have separate conditions.

Sources and editorial notes
Sources current as of: October 23, 2026
1. Dutch Civil Code 7:669 — dismissal ground and redeployment
Publisher: Wettenbank · Overheid.nl
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/#Boek7_Titeldeel10_Afdeling9_Artikel669
2. Dutch Supreme Court — ECLI:NL:HR:2018:220
Publisher: Rechtspraak
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2018:220
3. Dutch judiciary — defence and employee requests
Publisher: Rechtspraak
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/onderwerpen/ontslag/verzoekschriftprocedure-werknemer
4. UWV — dismissal for personal reasons
Publisher: UWV
https://www.uwv.nl/nl/ontslag/ontslag-persoonlijke-redenen
The source publications are in Dutch. All language editions cover Dutch law.