The employee joined the municipality of Venlo on 1 January 2010, working as a special investigating officer (BOA). On 11 January 2016, during mandatory aggression training, he suffered serious injury to his right thumb. He continued working as best he could after the accident. Over time, it became clear that, because of the injury, he could no longer meet certain requirements of the role. From 6 November 2018, the company doctor found him unfit to carry out his BOA duties in full, though fit for other suitable work. A difficult reintegration process followed. Two conversations then took place between the employee and the municipality of Venlo in which the intention to end his employment was raised. The employee increasingly withdrew into himself and, at a certain point, attempted suicide: he poured a flammable liquid over himself and threatened to set himself on fire. The two colleagues present fled the room in panic. Following this incident, the employee was summarily dismissed. He sought to have the summary dismissal annulled and claimed payment of the transition payment.
The subdistrict court noted that the employee did not dispute pouring a flammable liquid over himself and threatening to set himself on fire. Although he disputed threatening to douse a colleague with the liquid too, the subdistrict court did not consider this decisive either way. The mere act of pouring a flammable liquid over oneself (in an enclosed space, near colleagues) and threatening to set oneself alight was so serious, and had such an impact on the colleagues present, that the municipality of Venlo could reasonably decide to summarily dismiss the employee. The subdistrict court rejected his argument that he could not be blamed for his conduct due to a psychological or psychiatric disorder: it was not established that such a disorder existed. Even if it had, the subdistrict court still considered the urgent cause so serious that summary dismissal was justified regardless. It was also relevant that the act involved prior preparation on the employee’s part. The summary dismissal was therefore valid.
Regarding the requested transition payment, the subdistrict court ruled as follows. It saw the beginning of the employee’s “decline” in the workplace accident he suffered in January 2016. The municipality of Venlo had dropped the ball during the reintegration process. Furthermore, the impact of the labour dispute on the employee’s wellbeing was known to the company doctor, and the municipality had not addressed this proactively. Finally, in a conversation about his impending dismissal, the employee was faced with three municipal staff members at once. It is easy to imagine he felt he had “nowhere to turn” in that situation. The employee was entitled to the transition payment of EUR 15,909.54 gross, since withholding it would be unacceptable by standards of reasonableness and fairness.
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
