09 Jan Instant dismissal for employee who showed his genitals from company car after working hours
Instant dismissal for employee who showed his genitals from company car after working hours
The employee, who had been employed by his employer since Nov. 1, 2018, used a company van to drive home on March 4, 2021. With this bus he drove around Bleiswijk, where it also stopped for a while on the Peppeldreef. On that same afternoon, the employer received a call from a lady. This lady related how she had been treated in an unwelcome manner by the employee in question on Peppeldreef. The minutes of the March 15, 2021 report showed that this lady had been accosted by the employee, whereupon she walked to the bus. Once there, she found the employee with his lower body bared, as he asked her if she wanted to hold his genitals.
The next day, the employer took immediate action and requested that the employee report to his office. There, an attachment was sent to employee via Whatsapp notifying him of his immediate dismissal.
Before the subdistrict court, the employee requested payment of fair compensation, liquidated damages, transitional compensation and litigation costs. The district judge denied the employee’s request. On appeal, the employee again requested payment of equitable compensation, liquidated damages, transitional compensation and litigation costs because it was not clear to him from the dismissal letter what the urgent reason for dismissal would be. He claimed not to know why he had been fired, as he did not know where, what time and which woman he had allegedly mistreated. Therefore, the promptness requirement was not met, according to the employee.
Judgment of the Hague Court
The court did not go along with the employee’s contention, despite the missing elements in the resignation letter. According to the court, the essence of the incident is at issue: the employee showed his genitals, after which he asked the lady to hold it. The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to establish these facts.
According to the court, the employee’s conduct fell under Article 30 of the company regulations. That article stated that such undesirable behavior can lead to summary dismissal in serious cases. Because the incident was so serious, and the employer had an interest in preserving its good name, a serious situation in the working relationship between the employee and employer arose. The fact that the incident occurred outside working hours did not alter this. This is a company bus with name recognition that evokes direct association with the employer.
The summary dismissal was upheld.
For the entire ruling, click here.
Questions about the above?
Please contact one of the employment lawyers at Sørensen Advocaten. Call: 010-2492444
