WW refused, reduced or reclaimed: where do you stand legally?

Written by Ömür Arslan, social security lawyer at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the areas-of-law register of the Netherlands Bar for tenancy law and social security law. Last updated: 1 September 2026.

My WW benefit has been refused: what are the most common reasons?

In practice, a WW benefit (Dutch unemployment benefit) is refused for four kinds of reasons: you are deemed culpably unemployed, you do not meet the weeks requirement, you fall under a statutory ground for exclusion, or you have breached an obligation — and by far the most refusals are due to the first reason. Which of the four it is determines entirely what you can do about it. A refusal on the ground of culpable unemployment is rebutted with facts about how the employment ended; a refusal on the ground of the weeks requirement is rebutted with payslips.

That is therefore the first thing you need to establish: which article is the refusal based on? That is stated in the decision itself, usually at the bottom or in an annex. Look it up before you do anything else.

Two things matter more here than the substance. First: a refusal is a decision, and a decision is open to objection — in principle within six weeks. Second: the UWV often decides on the basis of a single document, usually the termination agreement or your employer’s notice letter. What is not in it, the UWV does not know; a large share of successful objections consists simply of supplying the context that was missing from the application.

How that objection procedure works exactly — the time limit, the pro forma objection, the hearing and the appeal to the district court — is explained on our page about objecting to a UWV decision. This page deals with the substantive question: why was your WW refused, and is that correct.

What does culpably unemployed mean, and what exactly does the UWV assess?

You are culpably unemployed if your unemployment is based on an urgent cause within the meaning of article 7:678 of the Civil Code and you can be blamed for it, or if the employment was ended by you or at your request without its continuation being attended by such objections that continuing could not reasonably be required of you. Those are the two routes of article 24(2) WW, and there is no third.

The obligation itself is laid down in article 24(1) WW: the employee prevents becoming culpably unemployed (part a) and being or remaining unemployed because he makes insufficient efforts to obtain suitable work, does not accept suitable work offered or fails to obtain it through his own actions, fails to retain suitable work through his own actions, or sets requirements that hinder accepting or obtaining suitable work (part b, under 1° to 4°).

Source: Unemployment Insurance Act (Werkloosheidswet), article 24, consulted via wetten.overheid.nl.

Note the structure of part a — that is where your room for manoeuvre lies. Two things must be true at the same time: there must be an urgent cause, and you must personally be to blame for it. If one of the two is missing, there is no culpable unemployment and therefore no ground for the measure.

What the UWV does and does not do in that assessment:

That last list deserves an explanation, because it is counter-intuitive.

The reason for dismissal counts, not the route of dismissal. The Amsterdam District Court expressly considered this: it follows from the legislative history that the legislature intended the reason for dismissal, not the route of dismissal, to be decisive in assessing culpable unemployment, and this has also been expressed in the text of the Act. The fact that no summary dismissal was given and no dissolution on the ground of an urgent cause took place therefore does not mean that there cannot be culpable unemployment; the UWV may investigate the reason independently (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2007:BB4609).

The requirement to act without delay does not apply here. In employment law, an employer must act without delay when dismissing summarily. For the WW assessment it is different: the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep) has held that the requirement of immediacy in article 7:677 of the Civil Code is not part of the concept of urgent cause in article 7:678 of the Civil Code, to which article 24(2)(a) WW refers, and that compliance with the requirement of immediacy is therefore not at issue in the WW assessment (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:3467). In practical terms: a dismissal that fails before the subdistrict court because the employer waited too long can still be treated by the UWV as based on an urgent cause. That is one of the most unpleasant surprises in this area of law.

What happens if the UWV finds culpability is set out in article 27(1) WW: the UWV permanently deducts an amount from the benefit, unless the failure to comply with the obligation cannot to a predominant extent be blamed on the employee; in that case the UWV deducts half of that amount for a maximum of 26 weeks.

That unless clause is the most important sentence of the entire provision, and in practice it is rarely applied of the UWV’s own accord. So there is an intermediate form between "everything" and "nothing": even if there was an urgent cause, the sanction can be halved where you cannot be blamed for that cause to a predominant extent. The Hague District Court expressly pointed this out: it follows from the assessment framework that a less severe measure than a permanent deduction is imposed if the failure to comply with the obligation cannot be blamed on the employee to a predominant extent (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:14889). Anyone who in the objection only disputes that there was an urgent cause leaves this alternative line unused.

Finally, and this is the provision most often forgotten: article 24(6) WW. It reads: "The employee’s failure to put forward a defence against, or the employee’s consent to, a termination of the employment by or at the request of the employer does not constitute a breach of the obligations referred to in the first paragraph, opening words and part a, or in the fifth paragraph."

In other words: cooperating with a termination initiated by your employer is not in itself culpable unemployment and not a prejudicial act. The Central Appeals Tribunal applied this in a case in which the termination took place at the employer’s initiative and the employee merely made use of one of the options the employer offered him: there was no prejudicial act (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2017:3477). It is different where an employee himself asks for an earlier end date than had been agreed; that can amount to a prejudicial act.

That is exactly the pivot of this whole subject. Everything turns on the question who took the initiative and what reason underlay the termination — and those two questions are answered on the basis of the documents you signed.

I resigned myself: will I get WW?

If you resign yourself, you are in principle not entitled to WW; a benefit is only paid if continuing the employment was attended by such objections that continuing could not reasonably be required of you — and you must make that plausible. The legal basis is article 24(2)(b) WW. This is the most expensive decision you can take in an employment conflict, and it is almost always taken too quickly.

The statutory standard is strict, and deliberately so: the WW is insurance against unemployment that happens to you, not against unemployment you choose. What the provision does leave open is the exception. There are situations in which continuing to work cannot reasonably be required of someone, and then there is no culpable unemployment.

What is put forward in practice as such a situation: an urgent cause on the employer’s side — article 7:679(2) of the Civil Code lists ten, including assault, gross insult or serious threats (part a), failure to pay wages on time (part c) and otherwise grossly neglecting the obligations under the employment contract (part g); a medical necessity, apparent from the opinion of a doctor or occupational physician; a move you could not reasonably avoid; or a structurally unsafe situation that you first raised in writing and that your employer did not remedy.

What those examples have in common: it is always something you can prove and that you recorded in writing before you left. A situation that is only described in the notice of objection, without any trace in e-mails, sick reports or letters, as a rule does not stand up — not because the UWV does not believe you, but because the decision must be based on established facts.

The UWV itself is brief about it: you will probably not get WW if you resign during your probationary period, after resigning during illness you may not be entitled to WW or sickness benefit, and in situations where continuing to work is unreasonable — for example in the case of threats — the UWV advises obtaining legal advice. Source: UWV, "What you need to consider if you resign yourself".

There is almost always a better route. If the situation is untenable, there are almost always routes that leave your benefit intact: a termination by mutual consent in which the reason is worded neutrally and the initiative lies with the employer, or a dissolution request in which you ask the court to find seriously culpable conduct on the part of your employer. Put those routes side by side before you resign:

One practical warning. A resignation in the heat of an argument is not automatically a valid resignation: a resignation by an employee requires a clear and unambiguous statement aimed at termination, and the employer has a duty to investigate and make sure that you really mean it. Did you shout something and is your employer holding you to it? Withdraw it in writing that same day and state that you remain available for work. You can read more about this on our page about summary dismissal.

I have been summarily dismissed: will I still get WW?

Summary dismissal does not automatically lead to the loss of your WW, but the UWV assesses independently whether there was an urgent cause and whether you can be blamed for it — and that assessment can turn out differently from that of the subdistrict court. So always apply for the benefit, even if you think it is hopeless. Not applying is the only certain way of getting nothing.

The reason the outcomes can diverge is the requirement to act without delay discussed above. The subdistrict court also assesses whether your employer acted quickly enough; the UWV does not (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:3467). A dismissal that fails under civil law because the employer was too slow can therefore still founder at the UWV on the substance of what you are accused of.

The order is everything here. Register with the UWV immediately and state expressly that you are challenging the dismissal. If you receive a refusal, the ordinary objection period of six weeks applies — a period of its own, separate from the period running at the subdistrict court, and therefore a second date to keep an eye on. The full explanation of both periods and of what you do in the meantime can be found on our page about summary dismissal.

My settlement agreement: which sentence will cost me my WW?

A settlement agreement in principle leaves your WW intact if it shows that the initiative lay with the employer, that it is not based on an urgent cause or culpable conduct on your part, and that the employer’s notice period has been respected — if one of those three is missing, a refusal is a real risk. For the UWV, the agreement is the most important — often the only — piece of evidence. What is not in it does not exist for the UWV.

This is where employment law and social security law meet, and this is where things go wrong most often. The parties negotiate about money and an end date; the sentence that ultimately costs the benefit is usually in the recitals and has received no one’s attention.

The three points the UWV reads in the text:

Where it goes wrong in practice:

• "At the employee’s request" somewhere in the recitals, while elsewhere it says that the employer made the proposal. A contradiction in the agreement’s own text is the classic in this area.
• The reason is stated too specifically. An employer who wants to put his side on record — "due to repeated poor performance despite warnings" — is helping you out of your benefit. For the termination itself, that sentence adds nothing.
• A reference to an incident. Even without the words "urgent cause", a description of conduct can be read as culpable conduct.
• An end date that falls before the end of the notice period, without this having been taken into account.
• An agreement that you will not apply for WW. That is not protection but an alarm bell: it is an agreement between you and your employer by which the UWV is not bound.

By way of illustration. After months of mounting tension, an administrative employee is sent a termination proposal. In the accompanying e-mail the employer writes that he is taking the initiative, but the recitals of the agreement itself state that the parties are terminating "at the employee’s request". The compensation has been arranged properly, so he signs. When he applies for WW, he is told that the employment was ended at his request without it being the case that continuation could not reasonably be required of him. What matters legally is not the atmosphere in the department and not the e-mail, but the text he signed himself — and the question whether that text contradicts itself. This is an example situation illustrating the rule, not a case handled by our firm.

The WW check therefore belongs at the negotiating table, not only at the application stage. Once you have signed, the text is a given and the only route left is an objection procedure against your own signature. That is a considerably harder road than rewriting two sentences before signing. What else such an agreement should contain — cooling-off period, transition payment, non-compete clause, reference — can be read on our page about the settlement agreement.

Do I meet the weeks requirement, and how is my employment history counted?

Entitlement to WW in principle arises if, in the 36 calendar weeks immediately preceding your first day of unemployment, you worked at least one hour per calendar week in at least 26 calendar weeks. That is the weeks requirement of article 17 WW, and it is applied incorrectly more often than people think.

Two nuances regularly make objections succeed.

First: it is about calendar weeks with at least one working hour. Not about a minimum number of hours and not about continuous employment. Short jobs, on-call shifts, agency weeks and a single day worked count as a full calendar week. Anyone with an irregular employment history therefore reaches 26 weeks more often than they themselves estimate.

Second: the reference period of 36 weeks can shift. Article 17a WW provides that certain weeks are disregarded — including weeks in which you could not work due to illness or incapacity for work, and weeks of unpaid leave up to a maximum of 78 calendar weeks. The period therefore shifts back, bringing weeks worked earlier within reach after all. It is precisely people who were ill for a long time before their dismissal who are wrongly refused here.

In addition to the weeks requirement, the requirements of article 16(1) WW apply. You are unemployed if in a calendar week you have at least five working hours fewer than your average, or are left with a number of hours that is at most half of that average, and you are available to accept work.

Employment history is something different from the weeks requirement: the weeks requirement determines whether you are entitled, the employment history determines for how long. Under article 42(6) WW it is calculated by adding up the calendar years from 2013 in which you received wages for 208 or more hours, the calendar years from 1998 to 2013 in which you received wages for 52 or more days, and all calendar years from the year in which you turned eighteen up to 1998. That last part is special: the years before 1998 count almost in full, regardless of whether you worked in those years. For older employees that makes a considerable difference.

Source: Unemployment Insurance Act (Werkloosheidswet), articles 16, 17, 17a and 42, consulted via wetten.overheid.nl.

So check the employment history used against your own payslips, annual statements and contracts. If the basis is wrong, the duration is wrong too.

When must I apply for WW, and what if I am too late?

Apply for WW in the window from one week before to one week after your first day of unemployment: the law requires you to submit the application within one week after your unemployment begins, and applying late can lead to a temporary or permanent, full or partial refusal. The obligation is laid down in article 26(1)(b) WW; the sanction in article 27(3) WW.

This time limit is the most unnecessary cause of loss of income in this area of law, and the reason it is missed is almost always the same: people wait until the final settlement has been paid or until the agreement is completely finalised. That is exactly the wrong way round. The application costs you nothing and commits you to nothing — you can always withdraw it.

There is a second, harder limit. Article 35 WW provides that the benefit is not paid for periods more than 26 weeks before the day on which the application was submitted; the UWV has the power to deviate from this in special cases. Anyone who waits half a year therefore in principle permanently loses what lies before that — even if there was an undisputed entitlement.

Are you too late after all? Then the case is not lost, but the outcome depends on culpability. Article 27(6) WW provides that a measure as referred to in the third paragraph is tailored to the seriousness of the conduct and the degree to which the employee can be blamed for it, and that the imposition of a measure is in any event waived if there is no culpability whatsoever. That is the provision on which an objection to a late-application measure is built: not with the argument that you were not late, but with a substantiation of why you could not reasonably have prevented it — a hospital admission, incorrect information from the UWV itself, an employer who only communicated the end date afterwards.

Source: Unemployment Insurance Act (Werkloosheidswet), articles 26, 27 and 35, consulted via wetten.overheid.nl; UWV, "Applying for WW benefit".

Why does my WW start later than my employment ended?

Because you are not entitled to benefit as long as the legally applicable notice period has not expired: in a termination by mutual consent, the UWV uses the employer’s notice period, counted from the day on which the termination was agreed in writing. That is stated in so many words in article 19(3) WW, and it is the provision popularly known as the notional notice period.

The statutory text is unusually precise. The employee is not entitled to benefit as long as the legally applicable notice period has not expired and the employment contract has ended by notice or because agreement on it was reached in writing; that period means the period that the employer or employee must each observe on giving notice under article 7:672 of the Civil Code. If the employment ended by mutual consent, the notice period that applies is that of the employer. And the date on which the employment is deemed to have been terminated is the date on which the termination was agreed in writing.

The Central Appeals Tribunal set out that provision in almost the same words (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2024:556), and The Hague District Court applied it to the usual situation: there is no entitlement to WW during the notice period the employer must observe, and that period starts running at the moment the termination is agreed in writing (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:21899).

That last point is the one that surprises almost everyone. The clock does not start at the conversation, not at the first proposal and not at the end date, but at the signing. Anyone who negotiates in March, signs in May and leaves on 1 June, while a notice period of two months applies to the employer, will in principle see their WW start only at the beginning of July. In the intervening period there is no salary and no benefit.

The statutory notice period for the employer increases with the length of the employment. Article 7:672(2) of the Civil Code sets four tiers, measured on the day notice is given:

That period can only be shortened by a collective labour agreement (CAO); extending it in writing is permitted (article 7:672(7) of the Civil Code). So always check both your employment contract and your CAO.

There is a second variant that hits at least as hard. Article 19(4) WW provides that the employee is not entitled to benefit until the fixed-term employment contract would have expired, if it ended early by mutual consent without an interim termination clause having been agreed in writing in the contract. Anyone who reaches a settlement halfway through a one-year contract without an interim termination clause can therefore be left without income until the original end date. So always check first whether your fixed-term contract contains an interim termination clause.

By way of illustration. A warehouse employee has been employed for just over six years. At the beginning of May he signs a termination agreement with an end date of 31 May; he is keen to leave and the quick date suits him. However, a notice period of two months applies to his employer, and that period is deemed to run from the day on which the termination was agreed in writing. The end date in the agreement is therefore not the date on which his benefit starts. The question that should have been answered before signing is what period falls between those two dates — and whether there is salary, compensation or nothing for it. This is an example situation illustrating the rule, not a case handled by our firm.

Practical rule: negotiate the end date first, and only then the amount. An extra month of employment yields salary, holiday pay and pension accrual and closes the gap; an extra month of compensation is taxed as a one-off payment and does not necessarily close the gap. See also our page about the settlement agreement.

How long does my WW benefit last?

The benefit lasts at least three months and at most 24 months, and above those three months it is built up on the basis of your employment history. That is laid down in article 42(1) WW.

The build-up above that is laid down in article 42(2) WW and works in two steps. In so far as your employment history does not exceed ten calendar years, the benefit lasts one month per calendar year of employment history. In so far as the employment history exceeds ten calendar years, the duration is extended by half a month for each calendar year of employment history after 2015 and by one month for each calendar year of employment history before 2016. In that calculation the months and half months are added up; if this does not result in whole months, half a month counts as fifteen calendar days.

There is a condition attached to that build-up, however: you must show that in the five calendar years immediately preceding the year of your first day of unemployment, you received wages for 208 or more hours per year in at least four calendar years — the so-called years requirement (article 42(2)(a) WW). If you do not meet it, you only get the basic duration.

As regards the amount, article 47(1) WW provides that the benefit is calculated per calendar month using a factor of 0.75 for the first two months in which there is entitlement to benefit and 0.7 from the third month, applied in a formula that takes account of the monthly wage, the (capped) daily wage and any income. What this comes to in your case depends on your daily wage and the maximum daily wage; have it recalculated rather than estimating it.

Source: Unemployment Insurance Act (Werkloosheidswet), articles 42 and 47, consulted via wetten.overheid.nl.

When the benefit ends earlier is set out in article 20(1) WW: if you are no longer entitled under article 19, if the benefit period has expired, if you are no longer unemployed because your income exceeds 87.5% of the monthly wage, or if you yourself ask for the entitlement to be ended. That percentage of 87.5 is relevant for anyone who starts working part-time: above that threshold the entitlement ends, and with it the possibility of reviving it later on the old terms.

What is the obligation to apply for jobs, and what measure follows if I do not comply with it?

You are obliged to make sufficient efforts to obtain suitable work; if you do not comply with that obligation, the UWV refuses the benefit temporarily or permanently, in full or in part, with a reduction of 25% for at least four months being the starting point in practice. The obligation is laid down in article 24(1)(b)(1°) WW; the power to impose a sanction in article 27(3) WW.

The amount is worked out in the Social Security Measures Decree (Maatregelenbesluit socialezekerheidswetten). For the third category — which includes making insufficient efforts to obtain suitable work — the measure is 25 per cent of the benefit amount, with the possibility of deviating to at least 15 per cent or at most 100 per cent, for at least four months. The Central Appeals Tribunal applied that framework in a case in which the WW benefit had been reduced by 25% for four months because the person concerned had carried out insufficient job-seeking activities (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2017:3816).

What "sufficient" means is filled in in practice with a number of job-seeking activities per four-week period. That number and the way you prove it are set out in the arrangements the UWV makes with you; record them and keep them. Job-seeking activities usually include not only responses to vacancies, but also networking conversations, registrations with employment agencies and conversations with employers.

Where objections to a job-seeking measure succeed:

That last one is the strongest argument and the least used. Article 27(6) WW requires the UWV to tailor the measure to the seriousness of the conduct and the degree of culpability, and to recognise that a measure is in any event waived if there is no culpability whatsoever. A decision that only mentions the number of missing job applications and weighs nothing else is vulnerable on that point.

Do I have to accept every job offer? Refusing suitable work

In the first six months of your benefit, suitable work is work that matches the work from which you became unemployed; after that, all work that is suited to your strengths and abilities is suitable, unless acceptance cannot be required of you for physical, mental or social reasons. That is the core of article 24(3) WW, and it explains why an offer you were allowed to refuse in month two leads to a measure in month eight.

The sanction for not accepting suitable work is, moreover, the heaviest of all. Article 27(2) WW provides that the UWV deducts an amount permanently from the benefit if the employee has not complied with the obligation in article 24(1)(b)(2°) — not accepting suitable work offered or failing to obtain it through his own actions. Unlike with the obligation to apply for jobs, this paragraph has no unless clause for limited culpability.

The unless clause is in the definition itself. Work is not suitable if acceptance cannot be required of you for physical, mental or social reasons. That is where the discussion needs to take place — and it is a strict test. The Central Appeals Tribunal held, for example, that the fact that a woman would have to do the work alone in the evening and night hours was in that case not sufficient reason to regard the work offered as unsuitable, partly because the applicable collective labour agreement obliged the employer to take adequate safety measures (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2005:AT2749).

What you take away from this: you substantiate a refusal in advance and with documents, not afterwards with a feeling. If there is a medical limitation, have it recorded. If the travel time is the problem, calculate it. If there is a caring responsibility, make it concrete.

There is one exception that cuts across the whole structure. Article 24(4) WW provides that all work is immediately suitable for the employee who, after 104 weeks of illness, does not receive a benefit under article 5 of the WIA (Work and Income according to Labour Capacity Act) and receives WW as a result. For anyone who ends up on WW after two years of illness without a WIA benefit, the six-month run-in period therefore does not apply.

I work or earn something alongside my WW: what do I need to report?

You are obliged, on request or promptly of your own accord, to inform the UWV of all facts and circumstances which you should reasonably understand may affect your entitlement to benefit, its amount or duration, or the amount paid out. That is the duty to provide information under article 25 WW, and it is worded more broadly than most people assume.

Note the wording. It is not about what you know affects it, but about what you should reasonably understand may affect it. That is a low threshold, and it explains why "I thought it didn’t matter" is rarely a successful defence. The sensible line: if in doubt, report it, in writing, and keep the confirmation.

What as a rule must be reported: all hours worked, including via an employment agency and including as a self-employed person; income related to work; illness and recovery; holidays and stays abroad; moving house; starting a business or registering with the Chamber of Commerce (KvK); accepting a new job, even if it only starts later; and study or training that affects your availability.

The fact that the UWV also sees your data via the payroll tax return does not release you from the obligation. Article 25 WW has one exception on this point: the obligation does not apply in so far as the facts can be established by the UWV on the basis of data designated by statutory provision. That is a narrowly defined exception, not a general licence — and in practice it takes months before the employment and income records (polisadministratie) are updated, resulting in recovery afterwards.

Why late reporting is sanctioned separately: article 27(3) WW gives the UWV the power to refuse the benefit temporarily or permanently, in full or in part, also in respect of failing to comply with the duty to provide information within the period set by the UWV. However, article 27(7) WW provides that the UWV can make do with a written warning if the late compliance has not led to an amount of loss (benadelingsbedrag). Anyone who corrects themselves before too much has been paid out is therefore in a fundamentally different position from someone who waits until the UWV discovers it itself.

The UWV is reclaiming money and imposing a fine: what can I do about it?

Recovery and a fine are two separate decisions, each with its own legal basis: recovery is in principle mandatory and concerns the amount, the fine concerns culpability — and it is precisely on that second point that objections most often succeed. They almost always come in one envelope, and that is why people lodge one objection against them and leave the rest.

In reality there are usually three or four decisions in front of you:

Recovery leaves little room. Article 36(1) WW provides that benefit paid without being due as a result of a decision under article 22a or 27, as well as anything otherwise paid without being due, is recovered by the UWV. Where there is room: in the question whether the underlying decision is correct and over what period and up to what amount recovery has been made. If the revision or the measure falls in the objection, the basis for the recovery disappears.

In addition, article 36(3) WW contains a narrowly defined scheme for waiving (further) recovery: among other things if you have fully complied with your payment obligations for five years or if you repay at least 50% of the remaining sum in one go. Under article 36(4) WW that period of five years becomes ten years where the recovery results from a breach of the duty to provide information. Have it assessed whether you qualify before you sign a payment arrangement.

The fine is a different kind of decision. Article 27a(1) WW provides that the UWV imposes an administrative fine of at most the amount of loss — the gross amount of benefit received wrongly or in too high an amount as a result of the breach. If the offence was committed intentionally, the maximum is the amount of the fifth category of article 23(4) of the Criminal Code; if not intentionally, the third category; if the breach did not lead to an amount of loss, the second category under paragraph 3.

Where objections to fines succeed, it is almost always on culpability. According to settled case law, the administrative body must tailor the amount to the seriousness of the offence and the degree to which the offender can be blamed for it, and where necessary take account of the circumstances in which it was committed; the court reviews without restraint whether the fine decision meets that standard and leads to a proportionate sanction (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2022:1957, referring to ECLI:NL:CRVB:2014:3754). The categories run from intent via gross negligence and ordinary culpability to reduced culpability, each with a different percentage of the amount of loss; the burden of stating and proving facts that may lead to a reduction lies with the person concerned.

By way of illustration. Someone on WW benefit does irregular work through an employment agency for a few months. There are payslips, tax is withheld and he assumes that the UWV therefore already sees those hours. Months later a decision arrives with a revision, a recovery and a fine. What matters legally is not whether he still has the money and not whether he acted in good faith, but whether he should reasonably have understood that that income could affect his benefit, and to what extent he can be blamed for not reporting it. That last question is the one to which the amount of the fine must be tailored — and it is a different question from that of the amount of the recovery. This is an example situation illustrating the rule, not a case handled by our firm.

So object to every decision in the letter, including the recovery itself, and ask for a breakdown per period. What has not been broken down cannot be checked — and therefore cannot be refuted either.

I fall ill during my WW: do I then move to the Sickness Benefits Act?

For the first thirteen weeks of your illness your WW in principle continues; after that, a benefit under the Sickness Benefits Act (Ziektewet) counts as a ground for exclusion from the WW and you move to the Sickness Benefits Act. That follows from the interplay between article 19(1)(a) WW and article 19(2) WW.

Article 19(1)(a) WW lists as a ground for exclusion that the employee receives a benefit under the Sickness Benefits Act: you cannot receive WW and sickness benefit at the same time. Article 19(2) WW adds that the non-payment of such a benefit because of waiting days is treated as receiving it — with the express exception that waiting days do not include the first thirteen weeks of incapacity to perform his work due to illness. That is the statutory basis for the practice that the WW continues for the first thirteen weeks of illness.

What that means for you in concrete terms:

Two pitfalls.

First: the objection period for sickness decisions is shorter. If the dispute is about whether you are ill — a declaration of fitness for work (hersteldverklaring), for example — the period under article 75k of the Sickness Benefits Act is in principle two weeks instead of six. That is the most frequently missed time limit in the whole of social security law. See our page about objecting to a UWV decision.

Second: if you fall ill shortly after the end of your employment, there is a separate route. Article 46(1) of the Sickness Benefits Act provides that anyone who becomes unfit for work within four weeks after the end of their insurance is entitled to sickness benefit from the UWV as if they had remained insured — the so-called after-effect cover (nawerking). Anyone who drops out during that period therefore ends up not in the WW but under the Sickness Benefits Act, with an entirely different assessment.

Illness around the end of an employment is, moreover, the situation in which most irreparable mistakes are made, in particular when signing a termination agreement during incapacity for work. You can read more about this on our page about dismissal and illness.

Source: Unemployment Insurance Act (Werkloosheidswet) article 19, Sickness Benefits Act (Ziektewet) article 46, consulted via wetten.overheid.nl.

My WW has been refused: what can I do about it now?

Every UWV decision is open to objection, in principle within six weeks after the day on which the decision was announced — and that time limit is strict. Find the date at the top of the letter, add six weeks, write that date down and work back from there. That is the only thing that really has to be done today.

What you also do, in this order:

1. Establish on what ground the refusal is based. Culpable unemployment, the weeks requirement, a ground for exclusion or a measure — each calls for a different kind of substantiation.
2. Request the complete file, including what your employer supplied. The heart of the matter often emerges from it: a form on which a reason has been ticked that nobody discussed with you.
3. Collect the documents the UWV did not have. E-mails about who took the initiative, the correspondence surrounding the agreement, payslips for the weeks requirement, medical documents for culpability.
4. Lodge your objection in time, even if it is not yet complete. A short, timely pro forma objection is worth more than an extensive, late one.
5. Always pursue the alternative line. Alongside "there was no urgent cause" there should in principle also be: "and if there was, I cannot be blamed for it to a predominant extent" (article 27(1) WW) and "the measure has not been tailored to seriousness and culpability" (article 27(6) WW).
6. If you currently have no income, have it assessed whether interim relief makes sense and whether you qualify for social assistance under the Participation Act (Participatiewet). An objection in principle does not suspend the decision.

The procedure itself — the pro forma objection, the hearing, the appeal to the district court, the further appeal to the Central Appeals Tribunal and what that costs — is set out in full on our page about objecting to a UWV decision.

Source: General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht), articles 6:7 and 6:8, consulted via wetten.overheid.nl.

Common mistakes around the WW

Most WW problems do not arise at the UWV but in the weeks before, at the negotiating table or in the first days after the dismissal. These are the mistakes that are hardest to put right afterwards.

1. Signing a termination agreement without the WW check. The text determines the outcome, and after signing that text is a given.
2. Resigning yourself to get it over with. Article 24(2)(b) WW targets exactly that choice, and the exception is narrow.
3. Applying too late. The time limit is one week; waiting for the final settlement is not a valid reason.
4. Accepting a summary dismissal. Without a counterweight, the UWV in principle follows the employer’s account.
5. Only disputing that there was an urgent cause. The alternative defence about the degree of culpability then remains unused.
6. Not reporting hours or income because "the UWV will see it anyway". That leads to recovery plus a fine.
7. Applying for jobs but not recording it. Without records, a measure is hard to refute.
8. Refusing a job offer without substantiating the refusal. Article 27(2) WW carries the heaviest sanction here.
9. Objecting to only one decision in the envelope. Measure, revision, recovery and fine are separate decisions.
10. Considering the end date more important than the notice period. Article 19(3) WW turns a "quick" end date into an income gap.
11. Calling instead of writing. A telephone call with the UWV is not an objection and does not stop any time limit.

When do you need help?

Not every WW problem calls for a lawyer, but there are situations in which the difference between having and not having expert assistance amounts to months of income. These are the signals:

You can read more about the costs of objection and appeal against the UWV on our page about objecting to a UWV decision. With us, you can have your situation assessed free of charge before you decide or sign anything.

Further reading

Does this apply to you? This article works out that situation in more detail:

• Falling ill during WW and the transition to the Sickness Benefits Act — Ill during WW: from unemployment benefit to the Sickness Benefits Act

About this advice

This page describes the main outline of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Werkloosheidswet) as it applies on 1 September 2026, based on the statutory text on wetten.overheid.nl, information from the UWV and published case law. Every case is assessed on its own facts; no rights can be derived from this text. Amounts, percentages and calculations that depend on your personal situation — your daily wage, your employment history, the amount of a fine — are deliberately not given here, because a wrong figure is more harmful than no figure.

Are you facing a refusal, a reduction, a recovery or an agreement that you have not yet signed? Call 070 450 0300 or send your question via arslan.nl/contact. We have offices in The Hague, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Tilburg and Eindhoven, and our firm also speaks Turkish and Polish.

Our offices: visiting address and direct telephone number

Each office has its own direct number. The first conversation is free of charge and confidential; besides Dutch we speak Turkish, Polish and English.

Not sure which office is most convenient? Then call 070 4500 300 or send your question through the contact form; we will put you through to the right colleague.