ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:2932
Summarily dismissing an employee is never without risk. Such dismissals are often annulled by the courts for lack of urgent cause. The District Court Rotterdam recently upheld a summary dismissal in a case concerning an employee who, while on sick leave, carried out work for another company.
Facts
The employee had worked for the employer for more than 26 years as a cable technician when he reported sick in November 2021. After his sick note, the employer received several reports that the employee was carrying out work elsewhere. The first report, in December 2023, led to a conversation between employer and employee in which the employee denied doing work for others.
Some time later, in February 2023, the employer again received reports that the employee was working elsewhere. He was said to be driving around in another company’s truck and carrying out work for others using his own equipment. The employer once again held a conversation with the employee, in which he was reminded of several rules. The employer emphasised that, under the absence-management policy, the employee was not permitted to carry out any work that had not been agreed as part of his reintegration – whether paid or unpaid.
In September 2023, the same reports came in again, after which the employer engaged corporate investigators. The draft investigation report clearly showed that the employee had been working for another company. A conversation followed between employer and employee, in which the employee confirmed having carried out this work. The employer summarily dismissed him.
The employee, however, considered the summary dismissal unjustified and sought to have it annulled.
Ruling
The subdistrict court ruled that the summary dismissal had rightly been given and rejected the request for annulment. There was urgent cause: the employee had himself admitted to working for another company, the employer had given him a warning, and he had breached his reintegration obligations. The employee also argued that the employer had insufficient interest in the summary dismissal, but the subdistrict court did not follow this argument. The employee had damaged the employer’s trust to such an extent that the employer did have sufficient interest in upholding the summary dismissal. The subdistrict court also rejected the claim for the transition payment. The employee had been given two warnings but had ignored both, and had knowingly breached the employer’s rules. The subdistrict court ruled that this amounted to seriously culpable conduct, meaning the right to the transition payment lapsed.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
Do you have questions about summary dismissal? Please feel free to contact our employment lawyers.
