Newsletter 2025 – 07
1 Office news
Mploy welcomes three new employees in October. Mr. Astrid Moehlig is transferring from an Antwerp office and will complete her internship in Westerlo. Mr. Fran Schellekens will begin her bar internship in October, also in Westerlo, and Mr. Selinay Yavuz will complete her bar internship at the Mploy office in Hasselt.
In social legislation, it's a fruitless search for the specific obligations of a project developer: after all, most laws focus on the client and/or contractor. This doesn't mean the project developer bears no responsibility for what happens on the construction site. Together with Conneqtr, Mploy organized a well-attended webinar on September 17, 2025, highlighting the project developer's social law responsibilities. Martijn Ronnen and Steven Renette .
On October 16, 2025, Steven Renette will begin the back-to-basic training for Prebes Limburg, where he will provide a presentation on workplace alcohol and drug evidence. More information can be found here
2 Jurisprudence – burnout is not a disability
Brussels Court of Appeal, 10 September 2024, AR 2022/AB/770, www.unia.be
Burnout does not constitute a disability within the meaning of the Discrimination Act (here)
A sales manager suffering from burnout was dismissed after several consecutive periods of incapacity for work. The C4 form listed “reorganization” as the cause of unemployment.
The employee believed the real reason for his dismissal was the burnout he was suffering from. He went to court to claim six months' salary in damages, alleging discrimination based on disability.
One of the (many) questions the Labour Court had to rule on was whether the burnout in question constitutes a disability within the meaning of the Discrimination Act. If the answer to this is affirmative, the affected employee may not be treated unequally compared to employees who do not suffer from burnout . Furthermore, the employer is obliged to implement reasonable adjustments so that the affected employee can continue to participate in the workforce. Finally, dismissal on the grounds of burnout is only permitted if its absence constitutes an essential and determining requirement for performing the job. Put differently: the employer will have to demonstrate that the job cannot possibly be performed by an employee *with* burnout.
Belgian labor law does not list conditions that qualify as "disabilities." Nor does a legal definition exist. It is the established case law of the Court of Justice that has led to a definition that qualifies "disability" as a long-term limitation resulting from a physical, mental, or psychological condition that, in interaction with other barriers, hinders the person's full and effective participation in professional life. To qualify as a "disability," each condition must be assessed against this definition.
It is essential that the limitation is long-term in nature. Long-term is contrasted here with short-term. to the question of how “long” short-term may be. The condition does not have to be incurable, but there is no minimum duration over which it must extend. What is established is that, at the time of the discriminatory act (here: the dismissal), there must not yet be any prospect of an imminent end to the incapacity (ECJ 01.12.2016, Daouidi, paragraph 59).
The Labor Court found that in this case, there was no question of a long-term condition due to the fact that, after an initial two-week period of incapacity, the employee submitted successive extensions for limited periods of 2, 3, or even 4 weeks each. From these short periods of incapacity, the Labor Court concluded that the employee's health could evolve rapidly. Such an assessment cannot be equated with the concept of "disability," which presupposes a long-term limitation. The general practitioner's certificate submitted during the proceedings, stating that the employee suffered from post-traumatic stress and that this hindered his professional development, was insufficient for the Labor Court to conclude that a "disability" existed. The employee's claim was rejected. He did partially retaliate on other grounds (but that goes beyond the scope of this contribution).
The general practitioner consulted by an employee with burnout symptoms faces a difficult dilemma: the legal protection of their patient under labor law benefits from a certificate for prolonged absence. This seems to be at odds with the gradually growing consensus that prolonged absence from work constitutes an obstacle rather than a bridge to sustainable reintegration.
Steven Renette, lawyer-partner
steven.renette@mploy.be
3 Jurisprudence – not every seller is a commercial representative
Antwerp Labor Court, Hasselt Division, July 23, 2025, unpublished
If a company doesn't actively seek out customers, but instead offers that clientele to itself through a "lead generator" on a website, and then hands that prospect over to a salesperson who goes on-site, that salesperson is not a sales representative.
The employer's company specializes in the manufacture and installation of solar panels, home batteries, charging stations, air conditioners and heat pumps.
A lead generator was installed on the company's website. This generated a list of interested customers requesting a quote. The company then assigned the potential customer to a salesperson. The salesperson then contacted the customer by phone, visited the location, and prepared a final quote.
The court points out that commercial representation within the meaning of the Employment Contracts Act requires that the employee not only visits customers but also actively seeks out customers.
That's not the case here. The employee isn't prospecting. The company itself does the prospecting through its website and the lead generator installed there.
Ludo Vermeulen, Partner lawyer
ludo.vermeulen@mploy.be