The employee had worked for Talpa since 1 February 2011. From 1 January 2016, he held the role of Creative Director. From 2017 onwards, he was repeatedly told his performance was inadequate and that the quality of the television programmes was insufficient. On 6 October 2017, he was suspended. He challenged the suspension in summary injunction proceedings and won. Since 7 March 2018, he has been unfit for work. His reintegration barely got off the ground. In early 2019, Talpa filed a request for dissolution due to a disturbed working relationship.
The subdistrict court dissolved the employment contract. The employee was entitled to the transition payment (EUR 39,972 gross) and fair compensation (EUR 1,026,449.08 gross). According to the subdistrict court, Talpa had acted in a seriously culpable manner by failing to offer him an improvement plan and by suspending him.
On appeal, Talpa sought to have the subdistrict court’s ruling on serious culpability, and the award of fair compensation, overturned. The Court of Appeal ruled that Talpa had not acted in a seriously culpable manner and that the employee was not entitled to fair compensation.
The employee appealed to the Supreme Court. He argued the Court of Appeal had wrongly failed to consider the extent to which the disturbed working relationship was Talpa’s own fault, in particular through wrongly proceeding to suspend him. He maintained that Talpa had in fact acted in a seriously culpable manner.
The Supreme Court ruled that the employee’s complaints could not lead to the Court of Appeal’s ruling being overturned. The Supreme Court gave no further reasoning for this decision. The employee’s appeal was dismissed.
For the full ruling, click here (in Dutch).
For our earlier blog on the Court of Appeal’s ruling, click here (in Dutch).
