Be Aware – August 2025

Belgium introduces remuneration cap for calculating social security contributions

Under the Belgian social security regime, employees contribute 13.07% and employers contribute around 27% of the employee’s remuneration to social security.

For blue-collar employees, these social security contributions are calculated on the basis of 108% of the gross amount. Blue-collar employees receive holiday pay from a holiday fund, not directly from the employer. This holiday fund doesn’t pay any social security contributions, so the social security contributions paid by the employer are calculated on an extra 8% as compensation. The part of the holiday pay subject to social security contributions is 8% of the annual remuneration.

These contributions used to be calculated on the basis of the uncapped remuneration. This is one of the main differences between the social security regime for employees and the social security regime for self-employed people. Under the latter regime, no social security contributions are due on revenues exceeding around EUR108,000 per year.

Both under the social security regime for employees and the one for self-employed people, social security benefits are calculated on the basis of a capped remuneration.

The current Belgian government announced in its government agreement that it would introduce a cap for calculating the employer social security contributions. The Programme Act of 18 July 2025, which was published in the Official Journal of 29 July 2025, effectively introduced this remuneration cap.

The Programme Act doesn’t stipulate the amount of the remuneration cap for calculating the employer’s social security contributions. It merely states the amount will be determined by Royal Decree. No such Royal Decree has been promulgated yet.

The National Office for Social Security has already announced that the remuneration cap will equal EUR85,000 per quarter and per employee. If the remuneration of an employee would exceed this amount of EUR85,000 per quarter, the normal employer social security contributions are not due on the part exceeding EUR85,000.

The remuneration cap only applies for normal employer social security contributions. Nothing changes for special contributions, for instance the contribution for the Closure Fund or the contribution for the Asbestos Fund. These are still calculated on the basis of uncapped remuneration. The same holds for the special social security contribution of 8.86% due on an employer contribution to a complementary pension scheme.

The employee social security contributions are also still calculated on the basis of uncapped remuneration.

The National Office for Social Security specified the remuneration cap is a fixed amount, independent of the working time. If an employee works for instance half-time, the amount of EUR85,000 isn’t reduced in line with the working time.

The Programme Act stipulates the amount of the remuneration cap is indexed by 2% each time the health index (the consumer price index excluding some products like fuel and cigarettes) increases by 2%.

This part of the Programme Act retroactively entered into force on 1 July 2025.

 

The risks of suggesting an employee resigns to avoid dismissal for serious misconduct

If an employer becomes aware of an employee’s serious misconduct and plans to dismiss them due to serious misconduct (ie with immediate effect and without payment of an indemnity in lieu of notice), employers sometimes offer the employee the possibility to resign.

In case of a valid resignation, the employment contract is also terminated with immediate effect and the employer doesn’t owe the employee an indemnity in lieu of notice.

A dismissal for serious misconduct implies a high risk of litigation for the employer before the Employment Tribunal. As both the formal conditions and the conditions on the merit for a dismissal for serious misconduct are very strict, the outcome of litigation risks favouring the employee. For the employer, a valid resignation avoids this risk.

From the employee's point of view, resigning is far more positive towards potential new employers compared to dismissal for serious misconduct.

A recently published judgement from the Employment Appeal Tribunal of Brussels on 10 January 2025 illustrates that convincing an employee to resign can nevertheless imply at least some risk for the employer.

The case concerned a pharmaceutical company. An employee with around 25 years continuous employment was tasked with performing quality tests. The company had a policy requiring those tests to be signed off by two employees. The situation arose when the employee couldn't find a colleague for a second signature, so he used another colleague's electronic signature. When that colleague found out, she informed management.

The next working day, the employee was asked to come to the managing director's office, where the managing director and the HR director informed him of the facts. The employee was told he would be dismissed for serious misconduct, unless he resigned. The HR manager handed over a draft resignation letter and settlement agreement, both ready for signature.

The employee requested assistance from a trade union delegate. When a trade union delegate arrived around 20 minutes later, the employee had already signed the resignation letter and the settlement agreement.

Two days later the employee's lawyer argued there was never a freely given consent for the resignation and that the employee only signed the resignation letter and the settlement agreement because of unjustified pressure from the company. He claimed an indemnity in lieu of notice and the indemnity due for manifestly unreasonable dismissal.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal pointed out that under general civil law, there is no valid consent if the “consent” only resulted from the use of violence. The resignation is invalid if the employee can establish violence by the employer caused them to agree to a resignation letter.

“Violence” can only be proved if the following four conditions are met :

• The pressure was the key element for the consent.
• The pressure was of a nature of impressing a normal reasonable person.
• The pressure creates the fear of serious physical or moral harm.
• The pressure is unjustified, in the sense that it doesn’t concern the normal use of a right.

Specifically in the field of employment law, it is established case law the mere fact an employer leaves an employee the choice between resigning or being dismissed due to serious misconduct does not automatically amount to violence. The Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed this view.

The fact the employer only had a very weak case for an eventual dismissal for serious misconduct is by itself also insufficient. Only if the invoked misconduct doesn’t exist or can blatantly not justify a valid dismissal for serious misconduct, can there be violence rendering a resignation invalid.

In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded there was violence as a result of the combination of circumstances resulting in the employee signing the resignation letter:

• The employer summoned the employee to a meeting in the managing director’s office without any prior notice or information about the agenda or purpose of the meeting.
• The employer presented the employee a “ready for signature” resignation letter and settlement agreement, without the time to examine them properly.
• The employee requested assistance by a trade union delegate, but a trade union delegate arrived only when the meeting was already over.
• The employer not only threatened the employee with a dismissal for serious misconduct, but also with a criminal complaint.
• The reason invoked for justifying the dismissal was dubious, as the employee could before the Employment Tribunal name several other workers who also signed test reports using the name of a colleague.

The employee had also immediately afterwards contested the “resignation.” Two days afterwards, a lawyer instructed by the employee addressed a letter to the company claiming the resignation was invalid due to the violence exercised by the employer.

As the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded the resignation was invalid due to violence, the employer was deemed to have terminated the employment contract. So the employer owed the employee an indemnity in lieu of notice.

Although suggesting an employee resigns as an alternative for a dismissal for serious misconduct is legal if the employer has good grounds for justifying a dismissal for serious misconduct, an employer should be aware of the risk the validity of a resignation is challenged afterwards. Steps for mitigating this risk are possible, notably informing the employee in advance about the discovered facts, allowing assistance by a trade union delegate (if there is one within the company) or allowing some reflection time (for contacting a lawyer or regional trade union).