"Uit" often means out or off — in a main clause it splits to the end ("Ik zet de lamp uit"), in a subclause it stays attached.
Sem: ?
Yara: , .
Noor: ?
Daan: . .
Sem: Ga je vanavond uit?
Are you going out tonight?
Vul het ontbrekende woord in:
Yes, I'm going out to eat with friends.
“Kunt u uitleggen waarom een verwijzing niet nodig is?”
I understand that, but the pain is getting worse, not better. Can you explain why a referral isn't necessary?
“Dat is administratief iets meer werk, maar het kan financieel beter uitpakken.”
Exactly. It stays there and will be paid out later. You'll then receive a pension from two funds instead of one. That's a bit more administrative work, but it can work out better financially.
“Aigerim, kun je uitleggen wat er na de Tweede Kamerverkiezingen gebeurt?”
Aigerim, can you explain what happens after the parliamentary elections?
“Dat is anders bij een contract voor bepaalde tijd: dan moet de werkgever uitleggen welke zwaarwegende bedrijfsbelangen het beding noodzakelijk maken.”
Then the employer doesn't need to provide a written justification. It's different with a fixed-term contract: then the employer has to explain which compelling business interests make the clause necessary. Without that justification the clause is not valid.