Practice Examples and Court Cases on Probation Period Nullity in Rijswijk

Case law surrounding Rijswijk highlights the risks of probation period nullity in local employment contracts. At the District Court of The Hague, under which Rijswijk falls (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:4567), the cantonal judge ruled that a probation period of four months in a seven-month contract was null and void. This violated Article 7:667a of the Dutch Civil Code (BW) due to exceeding the statutory maxima. The employee from Rijswijk received wages until the natural end of the contract, plus costs of proceedings. A similar Supreme Court case (ECLI:NL:HR:2020:890) involved a Rijswijk employer with repeated probation periods in successive fixed-term contracts, invalid under Article 7:667b BW. This resulted in a continuing performance obligation and compensation for damages. In the Rijswijk region, errors are more frequently seen among startups and local companies, such as vague wording or unequal probation period duration for employer and employee. Employees successfully litigate when the probation period is not explicitly included in writing, especially in sectors like IT and healthcare that are thriving in Rijswijk-ZH. Employers in Rijswijk can protect themselves by checking regional CAOs, such as those for the Hague region, and drafting contracts with clear clauses. Key lessons from this case law: strictly adhere to the time limits of one or two months, depending on contract duration, and avoid loopholes via 'renewal'. In cases of nullity signals, such as in Rijswijk residential areas where many home workers are affected, immediately initiate a demand letter. This article draws from judgments up to 2024, including District Court of The Hague rulings relevant to Rijswijk. For personal advice on your Rijswijk employment situation: consult a local labour law attorney to assess risks and consider litigation. (248 words)