Dutch Court Backs Inalfa's Right to Keep Paying a Worker to Stay Home

A failed dismissal bid at an automotive supplier's Dutch plant has ended with a judge ruling that full pay does not oblige an employer to put someone back on the shop floor.

The dispute centres on Inalfa's site in Venray, in the Netherlands, where management tried to end the contract of a man who had joined the company in 2017. When the Dutch authorities refused to sanction the dismissal in October 2025, the employer changed tack: rather than reintegrating him into normal operations, it released him from all duties while continuing to pay his regular salary.

He took the company to court, arguing that being paid to stay at home was no substitute for doing the job, and asked judges to order his return to his old position. The court turned him down.

Authorities Block the Exit, Company Chooses a Different Route

The sequence began with the dismissal application filed last October over the employee's role at the Venray factory. Officials examined the case and concluded that the legal conditions for terminating the employment relationship were not met, rejecting the employer's request.

Inalfa formally accepted that outcome. Organisationally, though, it drew its own conclusion — suspending the man from work rather than restoring him to the regular workflow, with his full salary continuing throughout.

A Salary Without a Desk

For the employee, the arrangement was unacceptable. He pressed for the actual performance of his duties and sought a court order compelling the business to deploy him actively again.

Judges declined. Their decision confirms that, in these circumstances, an employer cannot be forced to give a member of staff real work beyond paying them.

Legal commentators note that similar conflicts recur across employment systems, pitting an employer's interest in operational calm or restructuring against a worker's less tangible stake in social contact, keeping skills sharp and avoiding professional isolation. A general right to be given work, they point out, is not automatically enforceable at every stage of a dispute. The contract guarantees income; assigning specific tasks largely falls within management's discretion.

Where a company is willing to keep the full salary flowing, courts tend to weigh business reasons against continued deployment more heavily than the demand for active work. The Venray ruling fits that pattern, showing that continued pay can often head off court-ordered reinstatement.