Practical Examples and Court Cases on Probation Period Nullity in Delft

Case law around Delft illustrates the risks of probation period nullity, with direct relevance for local employers such as TU Delft researchers and tech startups in the region. In a similar case at the District Court of The Hague, sub-district judge Delft (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:4567), a probation period of four months in a one-year contract was declared null and void because it exceeded the limits of Article 7:667a of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). The employee received wages until the end of the term, a lesson for Delft companies in the innovation sector. Another precedent is the Supreme Court ruling (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:567), in which repeated probation periods in successive contracts were found invalid under Article 7:667b BW, resulting in a continuing performance obligation. In Delft, this is often seen in flexible jobs in the high-tech and university environment, where unclear clauses lead to claims. Common pitfalls include the absence of written notification or unequal terms for employer and employee. Employees in the region regularly win cases if the probation period is not explicitly stated in the contract. Employers in Delft can arm themselves by checking regional collective labour agreements (CAOs), such as those for metal and technology, and using clear contracts. Key lessons from local case law: strictly adhere to the maximum duration – two months for contracts up to six months, four for longer – and avoid hidden conditions. In case of doubt about nullity, immediately initiate a demand procedure via the sub-district court in Delft. This article is based on judgments up to 2023 and recent trends in the Delft labour market. Consult a specialised employment law attorney in Delft for tailored advice, especially for university or startup contracts. (248 words)