One dismissal, multiple compensations: can they be combined? The Supreme Court clarifies whether different dismissal-related compensations can be combined.
In three judgments of 12 October 2026, the Supreme Court clarified the extent to which different dismissal-related compensations may be combined. In doing so, the Supreme Court takes into account the applicable legal rules, but focuses primarily on whether the same damage is compensated on the basis of the same underlying facts or cause. The judgments concern compensation for manifestly unreasonable dismissal, discrimination, abuse of the right to dismiss and the specific dismissal protection afforded to (candidate) employee representatives.
Manifestly unreasonable dismissal and discrimination
In a first judgment, the Supreme Court considers whether compensation for manifestly unreasonable dismissal can be combined with compensation for discrimination.
The case concerned an employee who was frequently absent and was ultimately dismissed because his absences disrupted the company’s operations.
First, the Supreme Court refers to the legal provision stipulating that compensation for manifestly unreasonable dismissal cannot be combined with “any other compensation payable by the employer as a result of the termination of the employment contract”, except in the cases provided for by CBA No. 109.
Compensation due on the basis of protection against dismissal for a specific prohibited reason constitutes, in principle, “compensation payable by the employer as a result of the termination of the employment contract”. Such compensation can therefore not be combined with compensation for manifestly unreasonable dismissal.
Where the dismissal is discriminatory and, as a result, manifestly unreasonable, the lump-sum compensation for discrimination constitutes “compensation payable by the employer as a result of the termination of the employment contract”. Therefore, in such case, the compensation for discrimination cannot be combined with compensation for manifestly unreasonable dismissal.
Manifestly unreasonable dismissal and abuse of the right to dismiss
In a second judgment, the Supreme Court considers whether compensation for manifestly unreasonable dismissal can be combined with compensation for abuse of the right to dismiss.
The case concerned an employee who was initially sanctioned for his conduct by means of a suspension of several days and was dismissed some months later for the same conduct, even though no further shortcomings or misconduct had been established in the meantime.
The Supreme Court again refers to the principle that compensation for manifestly unreasonable dismissal cannot be combined with any other compensation payable by the employer as a result of the termination of the employment contract.
The Supreme Court then considers the damage covered by both types of compensation. Compensation for manifestly unreasonable dismissal provides lump-sum compensation for the material and moral damage resulting from the manifestly unreasonable dismissal. Compensation for abuse of the right to dismiss covers the damage resulting from the abuse.
Where the dismissal is manifestly unreasonable and, on the basis of the same facts and assessments, also constitutes abuse of rights, without any additional or separate fault, the compensation for manifestly unreasonable dismissal and the compensation for abuse of the right to dismiss cover the same damage. In this case, both types of compensation cannot be combined.
Discrimination and specific protection for employee representatives
In a third judgment, the Supreme Court considers whether compensation for discrimination can be combined with the specific protection payments for (candidate) employee representatives.
The case concerned an employee representative who was dismissed without compliance with the procedure laid down by the Act of 19 March 1991. The employer had paid the protection payments, but the employee additionally claimed compensation for discrimination on the grounds of trade union conviction.
According to the Supreme Court, the Anti-Discrimination Act aims to prevent any form of discrimination in the field of employment relations. Compensation for discrimination provides lump-sum compensation for the material and moral damage resulting from discrimination in the field of employment relations.
According to the Supreme Court, the specific dismissal protection under the Act of 19 March 1991 aims to prevent the risk that a protected employee is dismissed because of their position as an employee representative or because of their candidacy. The protection payments provide lump-sum compensation for the material and moral damage resulting from a dismissal in breach of that protection.
The Supreme Court holds that the specific dismissal protection for (candidate) employee representatives constitutes a specific form of protection against discrimination on the grounds of trade union membership. The specific protection payment for (candidate) employee representatives therefore, in principle, covers the same damage as the compensation for discrimination where the discrimination consists in the discriminatory dismissal itself. In such case, both types of compensation cannot be combined.
Key message
The three judgments of the Supreme Court make it clear that different dismissal-related compensation payments arising from one and the same act of dismissal cannot simply be combined. The legal basis, purpose and damage covered by each type of compensation must therefore be carefully assessed before concluding that the compensation payments can be combined. This must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.