Newsletter 2026 – 08
1 Office news
Mr. Janne Theunis obtained the 'Master in Human Rights and Democratization' degree from the universities of Montpellier and Venice in the academic year 2025-2026. She received a Thesis Award for her thesis "Drawing the line on the Union's values: Commission v Hungary (C-769/22) and the (queer) politics of LGBTQ+ rights in the EU. Assessing the promises and uncertainties of the self-standing article 2 TEU." You can read the full text of the thesis here. Big congratulations from Mploy.
On October 7, 2026, Mr. Ludo Vermeulen, co-founder of Mploy advocaten sociaal recht, reached a milestone few can match: 50 years active as a lawyer. Five decades in which he has not only seen labor, pension, and discrimination law evolve but also helped shape it.
On October 2, we celebrated this at Brasschaat Castle, in the company of family, friends, and colleagues. Two guest speakers added substantive weight to the festive atmosphere: Prof. Yves Stevens discussed the challenges in the ongoing pension debate, and Prof. Koen Lemmens explained why administering justice without stigma is better. This was no coincidence, as it is precisely in these domains that Ludo earned his stripes.
We thank Ludo for his knowledge, his drive, and the foundations upon which Mploy stands today.
2 Case Law – claim ex delicto – managerial position – working hours
Labour Court of Ghent, 15 October 2026, not published
On a claim filed more than a year after the termination of the employment contract, the judge must apply the rules of evidence of criminal law. A supermarket manager holds a supervisory position, so the rules regarding working hours do not apply to him.
D. entered the service of a company V., which operates a number of supermarkets belonging to a supermarket chain, on August 29, 2022. His employment contract stated that he was hired “in the capacity of a management employee.” He was active as a manager of one of the supermarkets. The employment contract specified a monthly salary of 4,400 euros, in addition to a company car, an expense allowance, etc. The provision regarding working hours read: “The employee is hired with a variable schedule. This entails that the weekly working hours are set at 45 hours per week.”
V. dismissed D. on October 27, 2023, and paid him the severance pay of 8 weeks.
By means of a summons served on 30 June 2025, D. primarily claimed back wages, specifically for his work performed above the sectorally established working hours of 36.5 hours per week. He argued that his wages only compensated for work performed up to 36.5 hours per week, but not for the 8.5 hours of work per week exceeding that amount.
The court first had to consider the statute of limitations. The claim was filed more than a year after the termination of the employment contract. The Employment Contracts Act stipulates that claims based on the employment contract become time-barred one year after the termination of that contract (see Article 15). However, non-payment of wages is generally a criminal offense. The claim for payment of compensation for damage incurred as a result of a criminal offense is (currently) time-barred after 10 years. D. invoked such a criminal offense. The judge must then examine whether all elements of the offense (material and moral elements) have been proven in accordance with criminal law. The rules of evidence of civil law do not apply. If the judge were to establish a criminal offense, D.'s claim would not be time-barred. But had employer V. committed a criminal offense?
In the judgment of October 15, 2026, the judge ruled in the first place that the supermarket manager held a managerial position. After all, he bore responsibility for an important department, namely a supermarket, and exercised authority over the staff of that supermarket. Consequently, the rules regarding working hours under the Labour Act did not apply to him. Furthermore, the judge refers to the employment contract. This stated the weekly working time of 45 hours and the salary of 4,400 euros. The conclusion is that the employer paid D. correctly and that no crime was committed. The judge declares D.'s claim unfounded.
Ludo Vermeulen, Partner lawyer
ludo.vermeulen@mploy.be
3 Case Law – better an unemployed pub owner than an unemployed waiter
Antwerp Labour Court, Tongeren-Borgloon division, 4 March 2026, not published
The owner of a brasserie may temporarily lay off two of his employees due to a lack of work, even if he takes over their work himself.
Following an investigation, the RVA decided not to recognize the temporary unemployment of two employees of a brasserie from January 2023 up to and including 30 April 2024 due to a lack of work. It reclaimed the unemployment benefits from the two employees. Mr. KC, the owner of the brasserie, was required to pay the employees their normal wages for that period.
The investigation revealed that KC himself was active in the business and pitched in where necessary, whether in the dining area or the kitchen. Public works were carried out in front of the brasserie in 2023 and until April 30, 2024, resulting in significantly fewer customers. The reason for the RVA decision was that KC himself had taken over the work of his two employees.
The court overturns that decision. KC did not outsource the work to third parties. Legislation regarding temporary unemployment does not permit this (see Article 30 quinquies of the Employment Contracts Act). Nor can he be blamed for stepping up his own efforts in bad times and taking over work from his employees.
Ludo Vermeulen, Partner lawyer
ludo.vermeulen@mploy.be