We previously wrote about a case in which we represented the employer in two proceedings against the same employee. The employee was married to the director and majority shareholder of the employer. A divorce was underway, and by that time the parties had in fact been separated for some time.
The appeal in one of the two proceedings has since taken place.
Dismissal proceedings
In the dismissal proceedings, the employee’s employment contract was dissolved as of 1 July 2020 due to a seriously disturbed working relationship. The employee is entitled to the transition payment. She is not entitled to the requested fair compensation of EUR 150,000.
For the full ruling, click here (in Dutch).
Wage claim proceedings: 100% continued pay during illness, and pension
In the other proceedings, the employee claimed unpaid wages (around EUR 10,000) and a pension provision (around EUR 112,000). The subdistrict court rejected both claims.
For the subdistrict court’s full ruling, click here (in Dutch).
The employee appealed.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the employee had received 100% of her pay during the second year of an earlier period of illness. She was therefore entitled to rely on the expectation that she would likewise be entitled to 100% pay during the second year of her second period of illness. This was so despite the employer’s argument that the 2014 employment contract had only been drawn up for the purposes of the compensation proceedings in Austria. According to the Court of Appeal, the parties had, in the period following the skiing accident, in fact acted in accordance with that employment contract, and the employee was therefore entitled to rely on the understanding that its terms reflected what the parties intended on this point.
Regarding the pension dispute, the employee relied on the fact that, according to the employer’s annual accounts, a provision had been included on the balance sheet since 2013 for the settlement amount needed to arrange a pension provision for her retroactively to 1 July 2005. The employer argued, among other things, that the parties had never intended to arrange the pension provision with retroactive effect. Based on the witness statements given before the subdistrict court and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court of Appeal concluded that the employee could not derive a justified expectation from the inclusion of that provision that a (definitive) pension commitment with retroactive effect had been made to her.
The claimed pension provision was rejected.
For the Court of Appeal’s full ruling, click here (in Dutch).
