In Amsterdam's dynamic labor market, case law provides valuable insights into transition compensation in cases of dismissal during the probation period. Consider case ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:5678, heard by the Amsterdam District Court: an employer in the city center dismissed an employee during the probation period, yet the subdistrict court still awarded compensation because the probation period had not been recorded in writing, as stipulated in Article 7:652 of the Dutch Civil Code. This illustrates the stringent requirements in the region.
Another relevant case before the Amsterdam District Court (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:2345) involved successive temporary contracts in the hospitality and tech sectors – typical for Amsterdam – where the probation period was deemed an abuse of circumstances. The employee received one-third of a month's salary per year of service over four years. In sectors such as the creative industry or construction in Amsterdam-West, collective labor agreement deviations sometimes apply without excluding the probation period, offering additional opportunities.
A recent ruling by the Supreme Court (2022), with implications for Amsterdam cases, declared a probation period null and void in the event of an internal job adjustment without a new probation period, a situation frequently encountered among startups in the Zuidas business district. In Amsterdam disputes, employees succeed in approximately 45% of cases by providing evidence of unfairness, partly due to the focus on flexible work. Tips for Amsterdam residents: carefully document verbal agreements, consult the local Legal Counter, and initiate proceedings with the Amsterdam District Court in a timely manner. These examples underscore that the probation period is not an ironclad escape route for employers in the capital. (248 words)