Meet Julie, a passionate employment lawyer at Marxman Lawyers. She likes to think along with entrepreneurs and is not afraid to counteract in a friendly way. Especially if this can lead to different insights and better decisions. In her spare time, Julie has a busy social life and can be found at various, sporting activities. And in addition to her work as a lawyer, Julie organises weddings and other festive events.
As a lawyer, Julie is involved in several objection and appeal cases on the Temporary Emergency Measure Bridging Employment (NOW). Today, we ask Julie some questions about her extensive experience with the NOW and what tips she can give employers dealing with it.
Julie indicates that most are probably familiar with the NOW, but she thinks it would be good to give another brief explanation. The NOW is a wage subsidy for employers who faced a sharp drop in turnover due to the corona crisis. The NOW subsidy helped employers continue paying their employees' wages. "Especially at the beginning of the corona crisis, employers applied for the scheme en masse. For instance, in the first application period, almost 121 thousand companies applied for subsidy."
Julie continues by telling us that there were 6 NOW schemes in total, spread over 8 application periods. Employers could apply for an advance on the NOW grant in a fairly straightforward way. The final subsidy was only calculated later, based on actual turnover figures. "In my experience, the implementing body UWV takes a much more critical look at whether an employer is entitled to a subsidy at that point," he says. A significant proportion of the subsidy applications are still rejected, causing discussion in practice.
By now, all application periods have passed and employers have had to submit their final grant applications. Julie says she can therefore imagine that some are wondering why the NOW is still current. "This is simply because many NOW files have not yet been settled or because employers have become embroiled in objection proceedings at the UWV or in appeal proceedings at the administrative court."
Julie assists employers in these proceedings. "As a result, I am constantly concerned with developments around the NOW scheme," she says. She tells us that it is interesting that more and more cases are being brought before the administrative courts, making it increasingly clear how the NOW provisions should be interpreted.
Julie goes on to explain to us that a NOW case is often not an isolated case. "Many companies have struggled in the corona crisis. In addition to a large debt burden, there are often other challenges. We learn at Marxman - besides being experts - to bring the broader perspective into the picture. We call this within our Marxman Excellence Programme the 'integral view'. This often results in surprising but effective perspectives and solutions. We let our clients benefit from the expertise, practical experience and personal and commercial networks present within our teams."
Another advantage of working with different expertise teams is that Julie can consult other teams to arrive at the best advice. For example, the Restructuring & Insolvency team. "After all, regardless of whether a NOW debt has been correctly determined, it may be necessary to arrive at debt restructuring. A very pragmatic look is then taken at what is needed to achieve the ultimate goal and a plan of action is drawn up to that end. Also, from a pragmatic point of view, contact is often proactively sought with UWV to reach a solution."
Employers knock on Julie's door with questions about the final determination of the NOW subsidy. Often this is when the grant has been rejected, but it may also be that the grant amount has been reduced. Why this happens varies from situation to situation. Usually, UWV finds that there has not been a sufficient loss of turnover. To be entitled to NOW subsidy, an employer must have suffered at least 20% loss of turnover (in short). Whether or not this percentage is met can have all kinds of causes. "In those situations, I advise whether it makes sense to take legal action. If so, an objection is made."
She goes on to explain that after the final grant application is submitted, an investigation may be conducted into the declared loss of turnover. That investigation is conducted by/on behalf of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. "If an investigation is launched, there is often something special at play and in that case it is definitely advisable to engage a lawyer to avoid making mistakes in the process."
Furthermore, Julie advises employers who have been ruled against in objection proceedings. With them, she discusses whether it makes sense to take the step to the administrative court. "A judge reassesses the entire file and takes a critical look at whether the UWV has taken the right steps, but also, for example, whether the decision is sufficiently well-founded. That's where things sometimes go wrong in practice."
Julie explains that when employers receive a reimbursement request, it can pay not to simply resign yourself to it. In her role as a lawyer, she helps identify the feasibility of an objection or appeal and, together with the employer, determines the most effective strategy to increase the chances of success.
"The NOW scheme came about quickly during the corona crisis and is sometimes presented as a standard solution where there would be no room for customisation." She says it is important to stress that while the scheme is widely used, there is room for customisation at the individual level. And that is the point where an employer can get on board. In cases where application of the general scheme leads to unreasonable outcomes, she advises employers and guides them in achieving tailor-made solutions.
They often involve large sums of money that have to be repaid and this obviously has a great impact on employers' organisations. She indicates that she feels it is important to be able to provide more clarity in these (sometimes) complicated procedures.
From experience, Julie knows that employers want to know quickly whether taking action makes sense. By reviewing the file, she can estimate the feasibility of an objection or appeal in a short period of time. This estimation forms the basis for making a well-considered decision to initiate such proceedings.
Julie explains that there are several situations in which it is wise to contact a lawyer. "For example, when you have doubts about whether the NOW recovery is justified, because it does involve a loss of turnover of at least 20%. Or when it feels like UWV is changing the rules of the game afterwards or suddenly including new aspects that were not known at the time of the grant application."
According to Julie, contacting a lawyer also makes sense if your interests as an employer are not sufficiently taken into account. In short, there are plenty of reasons not to simply resign yourself to a decision!
Want advice on your NOW case? Whether you have questions about a UWV decision, need clarification about your chances in an objection or appeal procedure, Julie will be happy to help. Please contact Julie viavanmeeteeren@marxman.nlOr call 033-450 8000.