The Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled in January that the requested fair compensation of EUR 100,000 was appropriate, since the disturbed working relationship resulted predominantly from seriously culpable acts and omissions by the employer.
Facts
Since 2005, the employee had worked for the employer as a Work Supervisor at the sheltered workshop. A few years later, he was promoted to Work Coach. In 2018, he was signed off work due to mental and stress-related complaints. From 2019, he gradually began reintegrating. As of 6 April 2019, he had fully recovered.
Between February 2019 and January 2020, the relationship between the parties rapidly deteriorated. According to the employer, the employee’s attitude, particularly towards his supervisors, was unacceptable. He would not accept being confronted about it and did nothing to improve his attitude, the employer said. The employee believed management was steering towards his departure following his reintegration. On 31 October 2019, the employer gave a speech in front of 200 employees presenting the results of a staff satisfaction survey. During that speech, defamatory statements were made about the employee: his name was mentioned, along with the fact that he scored a significant “fail”, that two-thirds of his staff wanted a different work coach, and that no agreement had been reached with him on an improvement plan.
The subdistrict court dissolved the employment contract on the ground of a disturbed working relationship.
Ruling
The Court of Appeal agreed that a disturbed working relationship existed, and that this resulted predominantly from seriously culpable acts and omissions by the employer. The employer should have clearly and professionally explained to the employee, who had just returned from a period of illness, which aspects of his attitude were considered unpleasant or unworkable, and what concrete improvements were expected from him and within what timeframe. It should then have properly implemented the agreed improvement plan. In the Court of Appeal’s view, the employer’s failure to do so is incomprehensible. Moreover, it is unacceptable that the employer pressured the employee to leave shortly after his reintegration. The Court of Appeal also considered the statements made at the 31 October 2019 meeting impermissible. There was no discernible purpose in singling out the employee to this extent in front of the entire staff, and disclosing information about a confidential improvement plan that, due to the employer’s own failure, had never actually been implemented. In doing so, the employer made it definitively impossible to repair the severely damaged working relationship.
The Court of Appeal therefore awarded the employee fair compensation. It took into account that, given the employee’s vulnerability, the employer should have handled him and the improvement plan to be presented to him with care. It is readily conceivable that, given his still rather fragile recovery, the way he was treated had an extra impact. The Court of Appeal awarded fair compensation of EUR 100,000.
For the full ruling, click here (in Dutch).
Questions about the above? Please contact one of Sørensen Advocaten’s employment lawyers. Call: +31 (0)10-2492444
