Voluntary, but not without responsibility

What happened in this case?

In this case, the employee reported sick. According to her general practitioner and psychologist, she was suffering from burnout. The occupational physician recommended mediation as an intervention for a workplace conflict.

The employee refused to participate in mediation, initially because she felt medically unable to do so at that time, and later because of the difficult relationship with the manager with whom the mediation would take place. Based on the principle of good employment practice, she requested that another contact person be appointed for the mediation process.

The employer did not agree to this request and, after issuing a warning, suspended payment of her salary. According to the employer, the employee was not complying with her legal reintegration obligations by refusing to participate in mediation and by avoiding contact with her manager.

This is a classic situation that experienced mediators regularly recognize in practice. Because of workplace tensions, a strained employment relationship or communication that has become stuck, occupational physicians often recommend mediation. This can lead to resistance from one or sometimes both parties because of the difficult relationship between them.

However, the purpose of mediation is not to create harmony at the table. Its purpose is to create space for a constructive conversation, guided by a neutral and impartial mediator. When an occupational physician recommends mediation, parties are generally expected to cooperate.

What does the law say, and how did the court decide?

Article 7:629 of the Dutch Civil Code states that an employee retains the right to salary during illness, unless the employee, without a valid reason, refuses to cooperate with reasonable instructions aimed at enabling the employee to perform suitable work.

The subdistrict court assessed whether the employer’s request was reasonable. In doing so, it considered that mediation had been deemed necessary for reintegration, both based on the advice of the occupational physician and the expert assessment from the UWV.

The court ruled:

“Mediation is intended to resolve conflicts under the guidance of an impartial and independent third party. In the employee’s case, the manager was the person with whom she apparently experienced a conflict, and that conflict needed to be addressed. Resolving the conflict was necessary for the employee’s reintegration into her own position. The employee could therefore reasonably be expected to cooperate.”

What does this ruling mean in practice?

Mediation is a voluntary process, but participation in the context of reintegration is not simply an optional choice. Refusal can have legal and financial consequences.

The ruling by the Amsterdam District Court makes clear that mediation in employment disputes is an important — and often necessary — intervention. Someone who enters such a process does not have to fear being forced into a particular outcome. Under the guidance of a neutral mediator, parties retain their autonomy and decision-making power.

What is expected is active participation in the mediation process and a willingness to engage in the conversation — not giving up control over the result.

Mediators affiliated with Result ADR support hundreds of workplace conflicts every year. Precisely when communication has broken down, mediation often proves to be the most promising route toward recovery, clarity and progress.

Not because it is easy, but because it is professionally and carefully structured.

Are you unsure whether mediation is useful or necessary in your situation? This ruling shows that refusing mediation does not only delay a solution — it can also have financial consequences.

Coming together for a conversation is often the first step toward progress. We are here to help.