District Court The Hague, 8 October 2023, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:20801
In this case between a hospital in Delft (the employer) and its employee, the court ruled that the employer had acted in a seriously culpable manner. After the oral hearing, the employer withdrew its own request to dissolve the employment contract. This led the employee to file her own request for dissolution, which the subdistrict court granted.
Facts
The employee had worked at the hospital since 1995 and had held various positions over the years. On 23 February 2023, she was told in a meeting that the employer wanted to end the employment contract, and she was suspended. She subsequently summoned the employer to interim relief proceedings on 8 June 2023, seeking to be reinstated in her own role and duties, with the corresponding tasks and responsibilities.
On 13 June 2023, the employer filed a request to dissolve the employment contract, primarily on the ground of underperformance and, in the alternative, on the ground of a difference of insight. A month later, the employer indicated it was willing to withdraw its dissolution request. The employee’s representative then asked how trust would be restored and what training would be offered, but received no answer. The employer withdrew the dissolution request and offered a mediation process, which the subdistrict court described as “mustard after the meal” (i.e., too little, too late).
Ruling of the court
The employee sought, among other things, payment of the transition payment and fair compensation, as well as compensation for legal and procedural costs. Her request was based on the position that the employer had acted in a seriously culpable manner, such that continuation of the employment contract could no longer be required of her. The employer acknowledged that the meeting on 23 February 2023 should have gone better, and that it had not adequately communicated its concerns about the cooperation and her performance beforehand. The employer also acknowledged that no improvement plan had been carried out.
The subdistrict court ruled that the employer had put forward a false ground for dismissal with the sole aim of creating an untenable situation, which qualifies as seriously culpable conduct. The employee had worked for the employer for more than 27 years without ever previously being addressed about her performance. Moreover, no attempt had been made to set up an improvement plan or to comply with the redeployment obligation. The employer had only stated that conversations had taken place with the employee, but this was insufficiently substantiated.
Conclusion
The subdistrict court concluded that the employer, through its approach and the absence of a prior improvement plan, had contributed to the irreparable disruption of the working relationship after an employment of more than 27 years, without any prior criticism of the employee’s performance. This was regarded as seriously culpable conduct, resulting in an award of the transition payment of €60,633.33 and fair compensation of €115,000.
This ruling underlines that employers must meet certain requirements before seeking dissolution of an employment contract. Failing to act carefully in this kind of situation can lead to substantial costs. Do you have questions about this topic? Please feel free to contact our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
