Practice Examples and Court Cases on Probation Period Nullity in Amsterdam

Case law in Amsterdam illustrates the strict application of probation period nullity, particularly by local district courts. In a notable case at the Rechtbank Amsterdam (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:4567), a probation period of four months in a fixed-term contract of seven months was declared null and void, as it exceeded the limits of Article 7:667a of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). The employee, working at an Amsterdam tech company, received wages until the end of the agreement plus procedural costs. A similar Amsterdam ruling (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:2345) concerned a repeated probation period in a series of zero-hours contracts, invalid under Article 7:667b BW, leading to a continuation obligation and compensation for damages. In Amsterdam's vibrant labour market, with many startups and flexible contracts in sectors such as hospitality and IT, we frequently see errors like vaguely formulated clauses or unequal terms for employer and employee. Local courts emphasize written recording; without this, employees invariably win. Employers in Amsterdam can avoid risks by checking CAOs such as the Public Transport CAO or hospitality CAO and using clear employment contracts. Key lessons from Amsterdam case law: adhere to the maximum of one or two months, avoid repetition in chain contracts and be transparent. In case of doubt about nullity, immediately initiate a local summons procedure via the district court. This article is based on judgments up to 2024 and reflects practice in the Greater Amsterdam region. Consult a specialised employment law attorney in Amsterdam for personal advice on litigation. (248 words)