An employee has done adapted work in another department due to illness, but when he has recovered, he wants to go back to his old work. The employer won't let him do that because the employee's position has expired and he has problems with his supervisor. How does the judge judge judge this? The judge finds that the employer does not have to admit the employee to his old work. This is because the employee's position is no longer there, because the work is partly automated and partly subdivided into other functions. These are functions at a higher level than the old function. Due to the extensive substantiation of the employer and the involvement of the Works Council, the judge does not find it likely that this reorganization - as the employee fears - is a false structure to be able to fire him. The internal complaints committee also considered this and concluded that the employer followed the rules properly. The employer has also explained that the work that the employee wants to perform again would require cooperation with his supervisor. This cooperation did not go well in the past and has led to the employee dropping out. The employer wants to prevent this from happening again. The judge agrees with this. After all, the Employment Research Report shows that there is a poor working relationship between the employee and the manager, causing the employee to have medical complaints. Judge's conclusion The employer has good reasons not to let the employee carry out his old work anymore. The employee's claim is therefore dismissed. Note: If an employee is ill for a long time, the employer's business continues to develop. Automation sometimes leads to a shift in tasks and functions. The employer does not have to stop this development because a long-term ill employee may and would like to return to their former position.