Associate | Attorney at law
Employment & Employee Participation
Sietske specialises in employment law, advising both large employers and employees on a range of matters such as dismissal (including summary dismissal), reorganisations, unacceptable behaviour in the workplace, incapacity for work and other HR-related issues. This means she can easily approach legal disputes from the perspective of both employer and employee, and keep sight of both parties’ interests. Sietske regularly provides training courses and webinars on current topics in employment law to HR professionals.
Sietske is an empathic, approachable attorney who likes to take a practical view of her cases. With her client’s interests at heart, she seeks out creative and surprising solutions with the aim of achieving the optimal result for her client, rather than the maximum.
Sietske obtained both her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from Leiden University. She successfully completed her Master’s in Employment Law in 2021, graduating with her thesis on the topic of employer liability in the context of employee burnout.
During her studies, Sietske worked as an external court clerk at the District Court of The Hague. She also volunteered at De Leidse Rechtwinkel, where she provided free legal advice in the area of employment law to Leiden residents with limited financial means. Sietske also undertook internships at a number of law firms, including De Clercq. She has been associated with De Clercq since 2021.
In the area of employment law, Sietske mainly works on HR-related matters such as dismissal (including summary dismissal), unacceptable behaviour in the workplace, reorganisations, and incapacity for work. Her approach is aimed at finding practical solutions that will help her client move forward, and this quality makes her an excellent sounding board for HR consultants.
Summary dismissal
Providing advice and guidance to employers in handling and settling summary dismissals, and in the associated litigation.
Guidance in reintegration processes
Guiding employers in the reintegration process, on the one hand to ensure that they satisfy all of the obligations under the Eligibility for Permanent Incapacity Benefit (Restrictions) Act (Wet Verbetering Poortwachter) and avoid wage sanctions, and on the other to enable employees to return to work as soon as possible.
Unacceptable behaviour in the workplace
Advising employers on how to prevent unacceptable behaviour in the workplace, and which steps need to be taken in the event that an employee reports (anonymously or otherwise) unacceptable behaviour in the workplace to their employer.
Reorganisation
Guiding employers through the entire reorganisation process, including drafting the request for advice for the works council.
Employment, Employee Participation & Mediation
29 September 2026
An employee calls in sick, stating that even minor exertion leaves her exhausted. Two weeks later, she takes part in an intensive HYROX competition. Her employer loses confidence in her and summarily dismisses her. The subdistrict court rules that the dismissal was justified.
Employment, Employee Participation & Mediation
28 September 2026
At the beginning of September, the Dutch government indicated that implementing the new pay transparency rules by 1 January 2027 would be feasible. That date now appears less certain. According to the Dutch House of Representatives’ current schedule, the bill is not due to be debated in plenary until the second week of 2027. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate will then still need to consider the proposal. As a result, entry into force on 1 January 2027 no longer appears likely.
Employment, Employee Participation & Mediation
7 September 2026
Your best-performing executive may also be your biggest people risk. The numbers are excellent. Targets are being met. The business is growing. But people keep leaving the executive's team. HR receives informal concerns about leadership style. Employees say they do not feel comfortable speaking up. There is no formal complaint. No investigation. No established misconduct. So when should the board become concerned?