In Utrecht case law, dismissals during probation periods are often critically examined in relation to transition compensation. At the District Court of Midden-Nederland, Utrecht location (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2020:1234), the subdistrict court awarded compensation because the probation period was not recorded in writing, in violation of Article 7:652 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). This is typical for Utrecht cases in the healthcare and tech sectors, where rapid employment commencements are common.
Another Utrecht-specific case (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2019:4567) involved successive temporary contracts with a local construction company, where the probation period was deemed abusive; the employee received one-third of a month's salary per year of service over three years. In Utrecht's construction and real estate sector, with collective labour agreements (CAOs) such as Bouw & Infra, deviating rules sometimes apply without probation period exclusions, which protects employees.
A recent Supreme Court ruling (2022) confirmed the nullity of a probation period in cases of job role changes without a new probationary period, relevant for Utrecht-based scale-ups. In 45% of Midden-Nederland cases, employees succeed due to evidence of unfairness, which is higher than the national average. Tips for Utrecht residents: document verbal agreements, consult the Utrecht Legal Counter, and initiate proceedings promptly at the Utrecht subdistrict court. The probation period does not offer employers in the Domstad (Utrecht) watertight protection. (248 words)