Belgian labour law is once again evolving. The federal government is working on a notable reform: introducing a one-week notice period during the first six months of an employment contract.

For many SMEs, this feels like a partial return of the former probation period. But what does this mean in practice, and where do things stand today?

‍

The measure explained

At first glance, the proposed reform is straightforward: during the first six months of a new employment contract, a fixed one-week notice period would apply, regardless of which party decides to end the relationship.

According to information from social secretariats such as Liantis and Group S, the proposal includes:

• A fixed one-week notice period during the first six months
• Applicable to both employer and employee
• Limited to new contracts only, with no retroactive effect, even for contracts currently under six months
• Automatic application, without the need for additional clauses

The objective goes beyond flexibility. In its communication, the government presents the measure as a way to encourage employers to give candidates a chance more easily, without fear of long-term commitments. At the same time, it aims to prevent premature terminations by giving employees the opportunity to prove themselves.

‍

Not yet in force

It is important to note that the reform has not yet been implemented.

Although it has been included in political agreements, the law still needs to be formally approved and published in the Belgian Official Gazette. Only then will it come into effect.

We are now in 2026, and implementation is expected in the second half of the year. However, no exact date has been confirmed. Until then, current notice period rules remain fully applicable.

‍

Why this reform?

Since the abolition of the probation period in 2014, many companies have faced a structural imbalance: the need to act quickly in case of a mismatch, while being constrained by notice periods that increase relatively quickly.

The reform aims to restore that balance, without formally reintroducing a probation period.

This is particularly relevant for SMEs. In smaller organisations, each hire has a direct impact on costs, team dynamics and operations. A poor hiring decision can quickly become visible.

A short and fixed notice period at the beginning of employment helps reduce that risk and allows for quicker decision-making.

‍

What would change in practice?

Currently, notice periods gradually increase with seniority. Even in the early months, they can influence the decision to continue or end an employment relationship.

The reform introduces a single rule: a one-week notice period for the first six months.

This results in:

• Lower financial and operational risks when hiring
• Faster and clearer decisions in case of a mismatch
• Greater flexibility during the initial months

At the same time, employees may also face earlier termination during this period.

‍

A quiet return of the probation period?

Officially, the probation period is not being reintroduced. In practice, however, the outcome is quite similar.

The underlying logic remains the same: a defined period during which both parties can more easily end the employment relationship. The difference lies in the legal structure, as it is now embedded in notice period rules.

In day-to-day practice, this distinction may feel largely theoretical.

‍

What about existing contracts?

The reform will only apply to new employment contracts. Existing contracts will remain subject to current rules, even if they have been in place for less than six months at the time of implementation.

In practice, companies may therefore need to manage two systems in parallel, depending on employees’ start dates.

For SMEs, this will require particular attention in terms of administration and internal communication.

‍

Conclusion

The one-week notice period during the first six months is becoming more concrete, but has not yet been formally adopted.

For now, nothing changes for companies hiring today. However, the direction is clear: more flexibility at the start of employment relationships.

Businesses are advised to monitor this development closely. Once implemented, it may significantly impact hiring decisions and early terminations.

Mutual termination agreements are on the rise. Both employers and employees are increasingly opting for this “soft exit”, moving away from traditional notice periods and potential conflict. However, behind this apparent flexibility lie legal and financial complexities that are often underestimated.

‍

A quiet trend in the Belgian labour market

In practice, HR departments and law firms are seeing a clear increase in mutual termination agreements. They are particularly common for white-collar profiles and in tight labour markets.

The logic is straightforward: it is often preferable to part ways quickly and discreetly rather than allowing a situation to drag on for months.

But simplicity can be misleading.

‍

What does it actually involve?

In a mutual termination, both employer and employee agree to end the employment contract, without applying the standard rules on notice periods or termination indemnities.

There is no specific legal framework comparable to employer-driven dismissal. The terms are defined in a written agreement, often with legal support.

A key principle, according to the Belgian Federal Public Service Employment, is that consent must be freely given. Any form of pressure can invalidate the agreement.

‍

Why companies are using it more often

For employers, the main drivers are speed and risk management.

• Avoiding lengthy and operationally disruptive notice periods
• Reducing the risk of legal disputes
• Handling sensitive situations discreetly

In cases such as underperformance without clear fault, small-scale reorganisations or a mismatch between role and profile, this approach provides a way out without escalation.

In SMEs, it is often seen as a pragmatic option: not a standard approach, but a way to prevent prolonged tension when a working relationship is no longer viable.

‍

What about employees?

There are advantages, although they are less obvious.

• Faster availability for a new opportunity
• Room to negotiate specific conditions
• Reduced conflict and reputational impact

This option is particularly attractive for employees who already have another opportunity lined up.

‍

The financial reality: where issues arise

No automatic protection

Unlike a standard dismissal:

• No automatic entitlement to notice compensation
• No statutory minimum guarantees

Everything depends on what is negotiated and agreed in writing.

In practice, organisations such as Group S and SD Worx observe that employees often underestimate what they give up when accepting such agreements.

Unemployment benefits: not straightforward

The Belgian unemployment office (ONEM/RVA) generally considers mutual termination as voluntary resignation.

This can lead to:

• Temporary suspension of benefits
• Investigation into the actual circumstances

Only if it can be demonstrated that the initiative effectively came from the employer may a sanction be avoided. This is not automatic.

‍

Negotiation is key

A well-negotiated agreement can significantly reduce risks.

Typical elements include:

• A compensation payment (often aligned with notice compensation)
• Continued benefits (company car, phone, bonus) for a limited period
• Outplacement support
• Reference agreements

Labour law practitioners stress that this should never be treated as a mere formality.

‍

Legal risks for employers

While it may appear straightforward, the approach also carries risks for employers.

• Potential disputes if implicit pressure is alleged
• Interpretation issues due to unclear clauses
• Reputational risks if exits are poorly managed

Specialised law firms emphasise the importance of properly documenting each agreement.

‍

When is it the right choice?

In practice, mutual termination works best in three situations:

1. A quick transition to a new job
2. A shared understanding that the collaboration is no longer working
3. A structured exit with fair compensation

It is less suitable when the employee depends on unemployment benefits or has limited negotiating power.

‍

Conclusion: flexibility comes at a price

Mutual termination is not a shortcut, but a fully-fledged tool that requires maturity from both sides.

For employers, it offers speed and control.
For employees, it can create opportunities, but only if properly negotiated.

The bottom line?
What looks like a smooth and friendly exit must also stand on solid legal and financial ground. Otherwise, a soft exit can quickly turn into a hard landing.

The debate around the first day of sick leave is resurfacing in Belgium. Within policy circles and employer organisations, discussions are once again underway about revisiting guaranteed pay from day one of absence. For many SMEs, where short-term absences are immediately felt, this is far from a minor issue. But what is actually being considered, and what is already in place today?

‍

A quick recap: what are the current rules?

Since January 2014, the so-called "waiting day" has been abolished. This brought a clear change:

• Employees are entitled to guaranteed pay from the first day of illness
• Even a one-day absence is therefore paid
• The rule applies to both blue-collar and white-collar workers

According to sources such as SD Worx and the Belgian federal authorities, the aim was to protect employees from income loss during short periods of illness.

Since November 2022, an additional measure has been introduced: employees may be absent for one day without a medical certificate up to three times per year. It is precisely this change that has reignited the debate around short-term absences.

‍

Why is this back on the agenda?

Despite the reform, criticism has been growing, particularly from employers. Organisations such as the FEB and Unizo have pointed to an increase in short-term sick leave.

The reasoning is fairly straightforward:
if the first day of absence is always paid, it may lower the threshold for taking a single sick day.

SMEs tend to feel the impact most directly:

• More complex workforce planning
• Last-minute replacements
• Productivity loss in smaller teams

In smaller organisations, even a single absence can quickly disrupt operations.

‍

What options are being discussed?

No final decision has been made at this stage, but several scenarios are currently being explored in policy discussions:

• Reintroducing an unpaid first sick day
• Limiting the number of paid short-term absences per year
• Increasing controls on medical certificates
• Introducing sector-specific rules

At the same time, recent changes regarding medical certificates are also feeding the debate. Employees can already take up to three one-day absences per year without providing a certificate, which adds another layer to the discussion.

‍

What do the numbers show?

Data from HR service providers such as SD Worx and Partena Professional suggests that short-term sick leave has indeed increased in recent years.

Key patterns include:

• Absences lasting one to three days
• Peaks at the beginning and end of the week
• A stronger impact in physically demanding sectors

While the causes are not entirely clear-cut, the combination of more flexible rules and workplace pressure is often highlighted.

‍

What does this mean for businesses today?

For now, no legislative changes have been approved. The current rules therefore remain fully applicable.

In practice:

• The first day of sick leave is still paid
• No immediate changes are required in payroll policies
• However, there is growing attention on absence management

As a result, more companies are investing in:

• Clear internal policies on sick leave
• Faster communication when absences occur
• Prevention and workplace well-being initiatives

‍

A broader policy shift

The discussion around the first sick day is part of a wider trend in Belgian labour policy: increasing focus on activation and shared responsibility in cases of illness.

Alongside reintegration measures and follow-up processes, policymakers are also looking at:

• Faster monitoring of absenteeism
• Stronger collaboration with occupational health services
• Financial incentives for both employers and employees

The first sick day is just one piece of a larger puzzle.

‍

Conclusion

The first day of sick leave remains paid for now, but the debate is clearly back on the table. Whether a reform will follow depends on political negotiations throughout 2026.

For businesses, the message is twofold: nothing changes immediately, but the issue is here to stay.

Those looking ahead would do well to review their absence policies now. Because if the rules shift again, the impact will be felt quickly on the ground.