Dear Sir or Madam!   During her sick leave, the worker was able to work part-time, as stipulated by the decision of the Social Insurance Institution. This way of working suited both the worker and us as an employer, as the worker was not able to work more than 4 hours a day on her right arm (which is now permanently injured), but we needed her work. The decision we have been given makes it impossible for us to continue the employment relationship, as we cannot provide the worker with another suitable full-time position, but we could continue the employment relationship with the restrictions, rehabilitation, and part-time hours taken into account. We will appeal the decision, but again this will take time before the case is final. However, we are in a dilemma as to how to deal with the worker in the meantime so as not to break the rules. As the decision is retrospective, if the appeal is rejected, we will have to settle everything retrospectively. Either to conclude a new employment contract retroactively or to terminate the contract, which requires a certain amount of time and a complicated procedure. In the meantime, the worker and the employer will be in an indefinite situation, since the worker is not allowed to do her current job as before and we have no other job to offer her. What can we do to ensure that we comply with the law? We have already had a case where we had to re-employ a worker and then go through the dismissal procedure again because of a retroactive decision. Such cases, due to authorities taking extreme deadlines to decide on the case in the first place (with speed being of the essence for a solution) and making unrealistic decisions in the second place, represent high costs for the employer which could have been avoided with more transparent procedures. In general, and to avoid all the problems that this creates, we should abolish retrospective decisions. We always seek the opinion of the competent authorities in order to resolve similar cases, but we do not get a concrete answer from them that is unambiguous and correct, because they are also in doubt and rely on the decision of the judicial authorities should legal proceedings arise. This is again disadvantageous and costly for the employer, who is trying to resolve the case correctly."