What do the three rulings of 12 October 2026 clarify?
The Court of Cassation examined three cases where a worker claimed several allowances following a dismissal. In each case, the Court rejected the requested combination, but for reasons related to the applicable rules and the damage covered.
Staff representative and trade union discrimination
A protected delegate had received both the special protection allowance and an allowance for discrimination based on her trade union beliefs. The Court of Cassation refused this combination. According to the Court, the protection provided by the law of 19 March 1991 is a specific form of protection against discrimination based on trade union beliefs. The special protection allowance compensates forfaitarily for all the damage resulting from dismissal in violation of this protection. Therefore, the two allowances, in principle, compensate for the same damage.
Manifestly unreasonable dismissal and discrimination
The dismissal was considered discriminatory due to the worker’s state of health. The labour court also found the dismissal manifestly unreasonable and granted both allowances.
The Court of Cassation rejected this combination. Article 9, § 3 of CCT no. 109 states that the allowance for manifestly unreasonable dismissal cannot be combined with another allowance due by the employer on termination of the labour contract, except for the exceptions provided by this provision.
Manifestly unreasonable dismissal and abuse of the right to dismiss.
The employer had sanctioned the worker, continued the collaboration for three months without new misconduct, then dismissed the worker for the same facts. The Court considered that the two allowances were based on the same facts and assessments and compensated for the same damage. It quashed the €5,000 penalty for abuse of the right to dismiss, while maintaining the allowance for manifestly unreasonable dismissal.
These decisions confirm the importance of not only looking at the legal basis of two compensation claims. You must also verify the damage they aim to repair, the facts on which they are based, and any legal or conventional rules limiting their combination.
Is combination now excluded in all cases?
No. These decisions do not create a general prohibition on combining any allowance related to a dismissal.
For the allowance for manifestly unreasonable dismissal, the rule is set by CCT no. 109. This allowance cannot, in principle, be combined with another allowance due on termination of the labour contract. However, the CCT provides four exceptions: the notice allowance, the non-competition allowance, the eviction allowance, and the complementary allowance paid in addition to social benefits.
For other allowances, you must examine the situation case by case. The ruling concerning the protection allowance specifically concerned the combination of the special protection allowance for staff representatives with an allowance for discrimination. It does not mean that all protection allowances are incompatible with any allowance for discrimination.
Finally, the ruling on abuse of the right to dismiss excludes combination when the two claims are based on the same facts and assessments and compensate for the same damage. It does not mean that any claim for a distinct fault automatically entitles an additional allowance: the damage invoked and the applicable rules must still be examined.
What practical consequences should you draw from this?
When several allowances are claimed from you following the same dismissal, do not automatically add them up. To assess your risk, examine each claim separately and check whether the allowances can actually be combined.
In the context of a dispute or negotiation, you can adopt the following approaches:
- Analyse each claim separately. Identify its legal basis, the damage invoked, and the facts supporting it. The total claimed is not enough to determine the amount that could be granted: check whether the claims concern the same damage and whether a text authorises or prohibits their combination.
- Examine the circumstances specific to the termination. A distinct fault, such as public humiliation or defamatory accusations, may support a separate claim if specific damage is established. However, do not assume that an alleged fault automatically entitles damages.
- Be attentive to the delay between a sanction and the dismissal. If you continue the collaboration after sanctioning a worker, then dismiss them several months later for the same facts, without new elements, your decision may be challenged as manifestly unreasonable. Make your decision in due time or carefully document the new facts motivating it.
- Apply the exceptions provided by the relevant text. If a law or collective agreement expressly authorises combination and this rule applies to your situation, the overlap of facts alone is not enough to exclude this authorisation. CCT no. 109 notably provides exceptions to its prohibition of combination and authorises the combination of the civil fine referred to in its article 7 with the allowance of its article 9.
What does Securex do for you?
A dismissal may expose your company to several compensation claims. Securex can accompany you in the legal analysis of your file and help you identify the rules applicable to the motivation of the dismissal and the allowances claimed.
For any further information or additional questions, do not hesitate to contact your Legal Advisor by e-mail at myHR@securex.be.
Source
- Court of Cassation, 12 October 2026, S.25.0025.F
- Court of Cassation, 12 October 2026, S.23.0034.F
- Court of Cassation, 12 October 2026, S.20.0061.F
- Collective labour agreement no. 109 of 12 February 2014 concerning the motivation of dismissal
