1. The proces-verbaal imposed a specific wage-calculation obligation on Intrixo
The proces-verbaal states that Intrixo had to provide the worker's representative, within two weeks, with a calculation of gross wages due since 6 May 2022.
Key findings
Each point below identifies a concrete finding or a clearly separated issue requiring review. Source links open the relevant section of the public evidence page, not repository code.
Two different scopes that must not be merged
Obligation recorded in the proces-verbaal
Within two weeks Intrixo had to provide the worker's representative with a calculation of gross wages due since 6 May 2022.
Data needed to verify the final balance
Independently testing a no-further-claim conclusion additionally requires a gross-to-net reconciliation, deductions, bank payments, separate treatment of the EUR 5,000 advance and the final balance.
Important: the proces-verbaal does not expressly state that all of those additional elements had to appear in one document.
2. The two-week period ended on 26 March 2024, but the public material contains no proof of full performance by that date
The date follows from the two-week period beginning on 12 March 2024. The absence of public proof does not by itself establish final non-performance; the complete file and correspondence must be compared.
3. The NBBU Fase 4 agreement provided for 32 working hours per week
The agreement falls under NBBU Fase 4, equivalent to ABU Phase C. The public excerpt records an indefinite-term agreement, 32 hours per week and no on-call contract.
4. Some payslips state “Contracturen: 1:00 uur per week”
The one-hour field is inconsistent with the agreement field recording 32 hours and requires an explanation of payroll-data history and corrections.
5. The document package contains missing or later-received payroll weeks
The working register identifies specific weeks requiring completion, allocation or confirmation. “Missing” means absent from the analyzed package.
6. The Raad van Discipline upheld the objection and complaint parts a) and d)
According to the decision held by the authors, the earlier chair's decision was set aside, parts a) and d) were upheld, parts b) and c) were dismissed, and a reprimand was imposed.
Public source: anonymized operative-part summary and reference 25-714/DH/DH
5 strongest evidence points · Timeline · Evidence index · For media