Dismissal for culpable conduct: address acts, rules and evidence

Dismissal for culpable conduct: address acts, rules and evidence

Does your employer say culpable conduct means you must leave? Ask which act, rule and circumstances support the petition. An accusation is not automatically proved, and not every established error makes continuation unreasonable. Facts, legal seriousness and compensation do not coincide on this ground. Prepare targeted defence and monitor the hearing and procedure instead of merely denying everything generally.

For each incident ask what happened, which standard applied and what proves it.

Culpable conduct is not the same as seriously culpable conduct.

Court dissolution differs from immediate summary dismissal.

Identify the procedure and requested outcome

Article 7:669 concerns culpable acts or omissions making continued employment unreasonable for the employer: the e-ground. The employer ordinarily asks the subdistrict court for dissolution. Check whether that is actually requested or whether you only received a warning, suspension or departure offer. Pending proceedings require a separate timely response.

The [general dismissal guide](guide:ontslag) helps identify the route. [Summary dismissal](guide:ontslag-op-staande-voet) differs: immediate notice with an urgent ground and its own requirements. Do not use one route’s requirements as your sole defence to the other. Also identify alternative or combined grounds so your response does not address just one part.

Make incidents and evidence individually checkable

For each allegation record date, act or omission, source and response. Are there messages, logs, schedules or direct witnesses? Ask the period covered by a report and whether quotations are complete. Labels such as “unreliable” or “uncooperative” do not identify the actual facts.

Acknowledge correct facts and identify the conclusion disputed. Give alternative explanations only when true; do not invent permission. Keep originals and context without unauthorised system access or wholesale copying of business files. Your file should clarify the dispute rather than create a new confidentiality problem.

Check rules, instructions and warnings

Was the required behaviour clear, including why? Collect contract, collective agreement, policies, actual instruction and how it was communicated. Refusing a reasonable task differs from an unclear or impossible task. Record clarification requests and replies. Role, resources and powers may affect the assessment.

There is no universal rule that three warnings validate every dismissal or that dissolution always requires an earlier warning. Nature, seriousness and circumstances matter. Bring earlier warnings with substantive replies. Distinguish [underperformance](guide:disfunctioneren): inability to perform requires another legal analysis from culpably failing to do what could reasonably be expected.

Do not leave incapacity and illness framed simply as blame

Promptly tell your adviser if health, overload or other specific limits contribute to behaviour. Discuss medical limitations with the occupational physician and record work arrangements. Do not send a full diagnosis to your manager just to establish good intentions. Medical inability and unjustified refusal need careful distinction.

If the e-ground petition concerns failure, without proper reason, to comply with the reintegration obligations in Article 7:660a, check Article 7:671b(5) specifically. The employer must first have demanded compliance in writing OR have stopped paying wages for that reason in accordance with Article 7:629(7). The latter provision requires prompt notification of the ground for non-payment once the suspicion arose or reasonably should have arisen. A written demand AND a wage stoppage are therefore not invariably both required. The employer must also have a relevant expert statement as referred to in Article 7:629a, usually a UWV expert statement, unless providing it cannot reasonably be required of the employer. If the required preliminary step or statement is missing without an applicable exception, paragraph 5 requires refusal of the petition. Have the documents and any reliance on the exception specifically assessed. Wage measures and dissolution remain separate steps; see the [wage stoppage and suspension guide](guide:loonstop-loonopschorting). Applying for an expert opinion does not automatically suspend duties or proceedings.

Separate dismissal ground, redeployment and compensation

The legislation says redeployment is in any event unreasonable where culpable conduct under the e-ground exists. The ground must actually be established first. “We need not redeploy” is not evidence of conduct. Where the employer also relies on other grounds, the assessment can differ for each.

Serious culpability is a separate higher question affecting matters including transition payment and termination. Not every dissolution for culpable behaviour automatically removes all compensation. Discuss wages, end date, counterclaims and your own requests too. If the employer presents every financial effect as one punishment, each statutory basis still needs support.

File targeted defence and appropriate own requests

The judiciary states that written defence must reach court and employer at least five days before the hearing; also read your notice and current instructions. Seek help early if the petition is incomplete. Use the [case-file builder](tool:dossier-builder) for concise evidence references and say whether you seek refusal, continuation or a conditional financial decision.

A lawyer is not mandatory in the subdistrict court. Use [finding a lawyer](tool:advocaat-zoeken) for help with evidence, legal seriousness and own requests. Ask scope, costs and filing responsibility. Continue ordinary applicable duties; a defence is not automatically release from work. Departure negotiations do not automatically extend hearing deadlines.

Fictional example: an instruction and an inaccurate label

An employee is accused of refusing an instruction. The employee accepts not doing the task that day but produces an earlier question about missing access and its reply. An adviser checks feasibility, alternative cooperation offered and clarity of instruction. The employee responds per incident and discusses financial requests if dissolution nevertheless follows. No result is predetermined: missing authority may matter, but the employer may prove a workable solution existed. Factual preparation goes beyond denying the word “refusal”.

Hearing notice, petition and every dismissal ground.

Incident schedule: fact, standard, proof and response.

Contract, policies, instructions and warnings.

Feasibility, resources and medical work arrangements.

Separate wage, compensation and redeployment effects.

Timely defence, own requests and accepted procedural responsibility.

Are three warnings always necessary?

No universal fixed number exists. Conduct, seriousness and circumstances determine the relevance of warnings and instructions.

Is culpable automatically seriously culpable?

No. Separate assessments can produce different financial effects. Have both questions addressed independently.

Does every refused task justify dismissal?

No. Clarity, reasonableness, feasibility and actual reasons for non-performance require examination. Explain cooperation you did offer.

Should I respond only if the accusation is true?

An incorrect petition also needs timely defence. Ignoring documents or the hearing does not automatically correct it.

Sources and editorial notes
Sources current as of: October 23, 2026
1. Dutch Civil Code 7:669 — e-ground and redeployment
Publisher: Wettenbank · Overheid.nl
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/#Boek7_Titeldeel10_Afdeling9_Artikel669
2. UWV — personal dismissal grounds
Publisher: UWV
https://www.uwv.nl/nl/ontslag/ontslag-persoonlijke-redenen
3. Dutch judiciary — employee defence
Publisher: Rechtspraak
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/onderwerpen/ontslag/verzoekschriftprocedure-werknemer
4. Dutch Civil Code 7:671b(5) — dissolution and reintegration obligations
Publisher: Wettenbank · Overheid.nl
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/#Boek7_Titeldeel10_Afdeling9_Artikel671b
5. Dutch Civil Code 7:660a — employee reintegration obligations
Publisher: Wettenbank · Overheid.nl
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/#Boek7_Titeldeel10_Afdeling7_Artikel660a
6. Dutch Civil Code 7:629(7) — notification of wage measure
Publisher: Wettenbank · Overheid.nl
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/#Boek7_Titeldeel10_Afdeling2_Artikel629
7. Dutch Civil Code 7:629a — expert statement
Publisher: Wettenbank · Overheid.nl
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/#Boek7_Titeldeel10_Afdeling2_Artikel629a
The source publications are in Dutch. All language editions cover Dutch law.