To be clear: you read that correctly, an employer had to pay €628,000 after being ordered to do so by the subdistrict court of the Noord-Holland District Court, which ruled that the dismissal given was wrongful. How did the court arrive at this ruling, why is this amount so high, and, perhaps even more importantly, how can you prevent such a ruling? I am happy to explain.
Noord-Holland subdistrict court: employer showed no concern whatsoever for the employee.
The employee in this matter had been employed since 1983. On the very day this employee joined his new team, he was already told that his position would be eliminated, without the employer giving any real proper substantiation for this decision. The work was to be moved to the UK, and the employee received no more work from that point on.
Communication from the employer also remained silent. The employer no longer showed any concern for the employee, and no form of adequate guidance was provided. There was no discussion of redeployment within the organisation.
The UWV did grant the employer permission to terminate the employment contract for business-economic reasons, but the subdistrict court saw this differently and struck this down. However, the subdistrict court also saw that, given everything that had taken place, a return was not possible, and therefore did dissolve the employment contract in view of a disturbed working relationship.
Given the dismissal, the employer was, firstly, already obliged to pay a statutory transition payment to the employee of €86,022. However, it did not stop there. The employer hid behind decisions of the board in the UK, left the employee to his fate, and sidelined him without making any attempts to retain him for the organisation. For example, by investigating and discussing redeployment options. The employer completely evaded all its obligations. In the subdistrict court’s judgment, this conduct by the employer is therefore seriously culpable to such an extent that it justifies this fair compensation.
How does this amount get so high?
To determine the amount of the fair compensation, the subdistrict court looked at the loss of income and pension that the employee would suffer up to his retirement age. At the time of this ruling, the employee did not yet have a new job and had to fall back on unemployment benefit. Given the employee’s age and his one-sided work experience, it is not to be expected that he will still find a new job in which he will earn an equivalent salary with equivalent pension accrual.
How can you, as an employer, prevent this?
Before the introduction of the WWZ, employers would sometimes force an exit/dismissal. For example, by sidelining an employee and not treating them carefully. This ruling teaches that this is punished mercilessly, and that all the steps you are required, by law (and decency), to take as an employer must also actually (and demonstrably) have been followed.
Tip: treat employees with care. When you are going to reorganise or wish to dismiss employees for other reasons such as underperformance, first contact a specialist employment lawyer.
