Facts
The employee had been employed by the employer since April 2000. For some time, he had struggled with cooperation problems with a colleague who, in his view, did not follow rules and instructions. The employee repeatedly raised these problems with his supervisor, but the employer took no action. He was simply told: “You’ll have to deal with it.”
On 4 July 2024, the employee was working with several colleagues on a project in Eelde, laying cables and pipes. During the work, another dispute arose with the colleague in question. In a moment of impulse and frustration, the employee then drove the employer’s company van into this colleague. The colleague was struck but was not injured.
After the incident, the employee was immediately interviewed and suspended. Shortly afterwards, he reported sick. Medical reports showed he was suffering from psychological symptoms and burnout. His GP and the company doctor reported that the symptoms were work-related and partly stemmed from the ongoing conflict in the workplace. The employer decided to terminate the employment contract. The subdistrict court dissolved the employment contract as of 1 January 2025 due to culpable conduct by the employee, but did award a transition payment. The employer appealed, arguing the conduct was seriously culpable, which would exclude entitlement to a transition payment.
Ruling of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal established that the employee had deliberately driven the company vehicle into his colleague. In doing so, he created a threatening and unsafe situation and caused fear among his colleagues. The Court of Appeal emphasised that the employee had, with this, gone far beyond what is acceptable and acted contrary to the duty of good employeeship.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal ruled that the conduct was not seriously culpable, since the incident, in the Court’s view, was an isolated moment after 24 years of good performance. The employee’s psychological symptoms played an important role. He was suffering from burnout symptoms and had lost control of his emotions. In addition, the employer had failed to act on the ongoing conflict and had ignored signs of excessive workload. The employer had therefore itself contributed to the escalation. These circumstances reduced the culpability to the point where the high threshold for “seriously culpable conduct” was not met.
The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the subdistrict court’s ruling: the employment contract remained dissolved, but the employee retained his right to a transition payment.
Conclusion
The right to a transition payment is only lost in the case of seriously culpable conduct or omission by the employee. That threshold is high. That an employee crosses a line is not, in itself, sufficient. Courts look at the totality of circumstances, including the employee’s mental state and the employer’s role in the origin of the conflict.
It is important for employers to recognise signs of stress or conflict in good time and respond to them adequately. Do you have questions about the conduct of one of your employees or about terminating an employment contract? Please feel free to contact one of our employment lawyers without obligation!
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
