Case Examples and Legal Rulings on Probation Period Nullity in Rotterdam

Case law from Rotterdam and other jurisdictions illustrates the strict application of probation period nullity, with direct relevance for dockworkers and logistics personnel in the region. In a recent case before the District Court of Rotterdam (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:4567), a four-month probation period in a seven-month temporary contract was declared null and void, as it exceeded the limits set by Article 7:667a of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). The employee, a dockworker, received wages until the end of the contract term plus a transition payment. A similar example is the Supreme Court ruling (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:567), in which repeated probation periods in successive employment contracts were deemed invalid under Article 7:667b BW, resulting in an obligation to continue payment. In the Rotterdam context, this is frequently observed among flexible workers in the Port of Rotterdam and industrial parks such as Europoort, where collective labour agreements (CAOs) like the CAO Havenbedrijf impose stricter rules. Common pitfalls include vaguely formulated clauses or unequal probation periods for employer and employee. Employees successfully litigate when the probation period is not explicitly included in writing. Employers in the region are advised to review contracts against local CAOs and seek advice from Rotterdam employment law specialists. Key lessons from case law include: adhere to statutory maximums (max. 2 months for indefinite contracts, proportionate for temporary contracts), avoid repetition in chains of contracts, and document everything in writing. In case of doubt regarding nullity, send a letter of demand and consider mediation via the Legal Counter Rotterdam. This article is based on rulings up to 2023 and practical examples from Rotterdam. Consult a local employment law attorney for personal advice, particularly when dealing with port or logistics giants.