Alcohol Dependent Employee has to Meet the Reintegration Obligations as well.

Despite the fact that alcohol addiction was the reason for the employee's failure to comply with his reintegration obligations, the Sub-district Court terminated the employment contract of the employee who had failed to perform suitable work and to cooperate in drawing up the first-year evaluation.
Since 2015, an employee had worked as a warehouse employee and driver of a plastics factory. Since March 2020, the employee had been ill a number of times due to his alcohol addiction. In March 2022, the employee reported ill again. In June 2022, the employee started to perform suitable work, but shortly afterwards he was admitted to a rehab clinic for five weeks. n August his reintegration was restarted, but in September the employee fell ill again. The next reintegration period could not get started until in March 2023.
When the employee was invited for a meeting about the legally required first-year evaluation, he twice did not turn up for this meeting. As announced earlier, the employer then discontinued his wage payment. Shortly afterwards, the employee was not available for a telephone appointment with the occupational physician either. A UWV expert opinion the employer had requested for lead to the conclusion that the employee insufficiently cooperated with his reintegration. Then, the employer requested the Sub-district Court to dissolve the employment contract for culpable behaviour.
The employee's defence was that his alcohol addiction was the reason for the fact that he could not work and for the fact that he had not contacted his employer after the wage discontinuation. The employee declared that he had a hard time and that he wanted to break his harmful drinking habit, but that, unfortunately, had not managed to do so, thus far.
The Sub-district Court was not blind to the employee’s difficult situation, but did not see it as a reason for refusing to perform suitable work. The employer had even adjusted the suitable work, after the UWV had ruled that the work the occupational physician had previously deemed suitable had not been suitable after all. The employer had also offered a solution for commuting.
As for the prohibition on termination during illness, the Sub-district Court was of the opinion that alcohol addiction should be seen as a disease, but, nevertheless, the prohibition on termination during illness does not apply if an employee refuses to comply with the reintegration obligations without having a proper reason for it.
The employer had also met the condition that the written notice to comply with the obligations should be given first, and that, for that reason, the wage payment had been discontinued first. Enough reason for the Sub-district Court to dissolve the employment contract.
Since it had been agreed upon during the hearing with the employee (who, by-the-way, litigated without the assistance of a legal advisor), the Sub-district Court did award the employee 70% of the unpaid wages and the transitional allowance.

Terminating an employment contract with an alcohol dependent employee is no easy task.
When the employee falls ill due to alcohol addiction, the employee is protected against dismissal by the prohibition on termination during illness. Alcohol addiction is usually regarded as a disease. And, if the employee resumes work after a period of illness, of course, there is no reason to dismiss him. In that case, the employee should be assumed to be recovered.
Opportunities to terminate the employment contract with the employee may arise if the employee misbehaves (which is an urgent reason for a summary dismissal) or if he does not fulfil his reintegration obligations (which is a reasonable ground for dissolution of the employment contract). In that case, in principle, the alcohol addiction should not be an excuse for the employee.