An employee concludes an employment contract for six months, from August 15, 2024 to February 15, 2025. The employer indicates in advance that the agreement will not be renewed, so that the notice obligation has been met. The employee worked for the last time on February 16, 2025, after which he has not been scheduled. Does this extra day mean a tacit extension by six months? Court considerations A fixed-term employment contract can be continued tacitly for the same period of time on the same terms if the employer has failed to comply with the notice obligation and the employment contract continues or if the employment contract continues without contradiction. It then comes down to whether, based on the employer's conduct, the employee was allowed to assume that the employment contract was continued tacitly after the end of the time for which it was entered into. In addition, the intentions of the parties at the time of the tacit extension are decisive. From the documents, the court cannot conclude that it was the intention of the parties to renew the employment contract tacitly. The employment contract includes the notification obligation, so that the employer has complied with it and the employment contract ended by operation of law on February 15, 2025. The mere fact that the employee was still scheduled and performed work on 16 February 2025 did not give him the justified expectation that the employer wanted to continue the employment contract. Indeed, after February 16, 2025, the employee was no longer scheduled: the February 2025 work schedule only includes crosses under his name from February 17 to 28, 2025. In addition, on February 21, 2025, the employer sent an email containing a proposal for the final bill. It follows that the employer assumed an end of the employment contract. In his first responses to this email, the employee only indicated that he did not agree with this final statement. He did not ask why he was no longer scheduled or made any other statements that would indicate that he assumed at that time that his employment contract had continued. The judge therefore concludes that it was (also) clear to the employee that the employment contract had ended. The employee's own proposal to come to work on 16 February apparently related to getting rid of minus hours and cannot be considered as making it available to perform the work under an extended employment contract. The conclusion is that the employment contract ended legally on February 15, 2025. However, the employer must also continue to pay February 16, 2025, because there were no minutes afterwards. Note: The employment contract itself already met the notice obligation at the end of the contract. It is then up to the employee to make it plausible that the parties intended to extend the temporary contract for the same period. Working through a day, for example, such as here to compensate for minus hours, is insufficient for that.