Newsletter 2026 – 07
October 6, 2026
1 Office news
The Mploy family is growing rapidly. We welcome Ms. Luna Nagels and Ms. Janne Theunis.
Luna Nagels obtained her Master's degree in Law from KU Leuven with distinction in the 2025-2026 academic year. In the same year, she also studied at the University of Zagreb via an Erasmus exchange, where she focused on anti-discrimination law in the workplace.
Janne Theunis obtained her Master's degree in Law from Ghent University with great distinction in 2025. In the 2025-2026 academic year, she followed the European Master's Programme in Human Rights and Democratisation (EMA) at the universities of Montpellier and Venice. She now also holds the title 'Master in Human Rights and Democratisation'.
by Mr. Steven Renette appeared in Knack titled “Who decides on employment discrimination in Flanders?”.
2 Case Law – on the Unified Status Act, seniority and notice period
Court of Cassation 1 June 2026, S.24.0016.N, www.juportal.be
The transitional arrangement of the Unified Status Act (with the “backpack”) does not apply to an employment contract concluded after 31 December 2013, even if the employee was already employed by the same undertaking before that date.
If the parties agree that the employee will receive a bonus, the amount and terms of which will be agreed upon annually in advance, the court may determine the amount of that bonus if the employer fails to make the annual agreement regarding it with the employee.
- Garage HA bv and Dendermonde Truck & Trailer Services bv (hereinafter 'DTTS') are sister companies.
- PV entered into employment with Garage HA bv as an employee on April 10, 2007. That employment contract ended by mutual agreement on June 30, 2014. On July 1, PV entered into an employment contract for an indefinite period with DTTS. It stipulated that PV was entitled to an annual bonus “to be discussed annually in January,” specifically regarding the amount and the objectives linked to the award. In 2018, 2019, and 2020, that discussion did not take place. DTTS terminated the agreement for urgent cause on July 11, 2020. PV claimed, among other things, severance pay and a bonus for 2018, 2019, and 2020. The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal declared both claims well-founded. It determined the amount of the bonuses itself based on the amounts awarded in 2015, 2016, and 2017.
- Before the Court of Cassation, DTTS challenged the Labour Court's decision regarding the notice period for the calculation of severance pay. That court had applied the transitional arrangement and used a notice period of 7 months and 21 weeks. In addition, DTTS sought the annulment of the Labour Court's decision regarding bonuses on the grounds that the court was not authorized to determine the amount itself because it thereby deprived the employer of its entrepreneurial and policy-making freedom.
- Transitional arrangements and notice period. The transitional provisions in the Unified Status Act apply only to the dismissal by the employer “of employees whose employment contract commenced before 1 January 2014 (see Article 67 – I italicize). In the contested decision, the Labour Court held that there is no indication that the transitional arrangement makes a distinction depending on whether the employee accrued seniority with the same employer or with “the same undertaking”. After all, the concept of 'undertaking' is broader than the concept of 'employer'. There was no dispute regarding the fact that Garage HA and DTTS were parts of the same undertaking. The judge therefore had to take into account seniority from 10 April 2007 in any event. However, the transitional rule applies only if the employment contract commenced before 1 January 2014. The Court of Cassation simply establishes that the employment contract (of 1 July 2014) commenced after 31 December 2013, so that the transitional arrangement does not apply. The Court thereby follows the purport that has long been reflected in legal doctrine and case law (see A. Crauwels, JTT 2021, 445). Consequence for the employee: he is not entitled to a period of 7 months and 21 weeks, but rather 42 weeks, which is approximately 6 weeks less.
- In the event of the termination of the employment contract of an employee who was already employed by the company before January 1, 2024, we will have to examine which agreement is in effect at the time of termination, even without a change of employer having occurred. If an employment contract for a fixed term of one year commences on July 1, 2013, and is followed on July 1, 2014, by an employment contract for an indefinite period, the transitional arrangement will not apply. Similarly, in the event of a change of position or another essential element of the employment contract, it must be determined whether a new agreement, whether oral or tacit, has been established as a result.
- Bonus. The law stipulates that a conditional obligation is deemed fulfilled when the debtor who had bound himself under that condition has prevented its fulfillment (Article 1178 of the old Civil Code). PV's employment contract contained the granting of an annual bonus as described above (see paragraph 2). Despite PV's insistence, DTTS failed from 2018 onwards to indeed discuss the modalities and the amount of the bonus, which was contrary to the agreement. The Labour Court ruled that the condition regarding the discussion must be considered fulfilled due to the fault of DTTS, so that PV was entitled to the annual bonus. Subsequently, the Labour Court itself determines the bonus based on the contractual provisions and bonuses awarded in the past. The Court of Cassation dismisses the appeal against this part of the Labour Court's judgment. After all, that court merely determined the obligations of the parties based on the agreement and the execution they gave to it. In doing so, the judge does not deprive the employer of his discretionary power.
Ludo Vermeulen, Partner lawyer
ludo.vermeulen@mploy.be
3 Case law – the dismissal of a prevention advisor – a minefield?
Antwerp Labour Court (Hasselt division) 5 August 2026, 2025/AH/64
An employer wishing to dismiss a prevention advisor must strictly follow the procedure of the Law of 20 December 2002. A prevention advisor challenging their dismissal often focuses primarily on the formal aspects. The judgment discusses some of these procedural obstacles to bringing the matter before the Committee for Prevention and Protection at Work (CPBW).
- The double notification. Article 5 requires the employer to simultaneously (1) notify the prevention advisor by registered letter of the reasons why he wishes to terminate the agreement, together with proof of those reasons, and (2) ask the members of the CPBW by registered letter for their prior agreement to the dismissal, enclosing a copy of the letter to the prevention advisor. The prevention advisor argued that he had already been informed by an email from the production manager who had placed the “intention to dismiss” on the agenda of the CPBW. The Court does not follow this argument. The email served merely to put the matter on the agenda of the meeting. It did not appear from anything that the production manager had any authority to send a notification. That is reserved for the employer. What counts is the registered letter. The six-page registered letter stated an intention to dismiss and was sufficiently accurate and fully substantiated. In the margin, and without this giving rise to discussion in this case: the employer had enclosed with the registered letter all documents (19) that supported his intention. The law does not explicitly require that the documents also be sent along. However, if the philosophy of the notification is that the CPBW can express its opinion on the intention with full knowledge of the facts, it is certainly recommended to do so.
- Presence of the prevention advisor at the meeting of the CPBW. It is the CPBW that must give its approval for a dismissal. The CPBW consists of the members of the employer and employee delegations. Article II.27 of the Code on Well-being at Work entrusts the internal prevention service with the secretariat of the CPBW meetings. Usually, the internal prevention advisor will take on this task. This creates a tension: the prevention advisor would then participate in a meeting where a decision is made regarding his dismissal and must subsequently draw up the report thereof. Usually, the prevention advisor is asked to leave the meeting when this agenda item is raised. The fact that the CPBW subsequently makes a decision in his absence does not render the deliberation irregular. This is how it proceeded in this case as well.
- The agenda item and the agreement. An agenda item added late does not invalidate the agreement either: exceeding the eight-day period stipulated in the internal regulations does not lead to this, and urgent matters could be raised at the meeting itself according to those same regulations. In this case, all members signed an agreement to the proposed dismissal at the meeting of the CPBW. The prudent employer naturally avoids thorny time limit issues.
- No obligation to hear the prevention advisor. The Law of 20 December 2002 does not impose a duty to hear: the prevention advisor does not need to be heard regarding his version of the facts before the CPBW makes a decision. The Court points out that Article 6, paragraph 2, offers the prevention advisor who disagrees with the dismissal only the option to initiate proceedings before the labour court.
Steven Renette, lawyer-partner
steven.renette@mploy.be