12 February 2025
An employer may request the court to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of a disrupted working relationship. In some cases, the court grants termination and concludes that the disruption resulted from gross misconduct by the employer. Such cases are exceptional.
In this article, we discuss a ruling by the Noord-Holland District Court on May 8, 2024.
This case involved an employee who had been working as a clinical chemist at a clinical laboratory since 2018. In December 2020, she had a confrontation with another employee. Shortly afterward, her manager informed her that a performance improvement plan would be initiated. A few days later, the employee suffered a blackout, and in 2021, she reported sick. According to the company doctor, her health complaints were partly caused by a workplace conflict with her employer. Later, she was also diagnosed with severe depression.
The subdistrict court found that the employer had failed to meet its reintegration obligations. The company doctor had indicated that the employee could return to her position within a few months, but the employer did not facilitate her reintegration. The employer ignored the doctor’s advice. Additionally, the court found that the employer had not taken sufficient, adequate steps to resolve the workplace conflict, even though the responsibility for doing so lay with the employer.
The court considered the fact that only one mediation session had taken place between the employer and the employee. After this session, the employer attempted to terminate the employment contract in various ways—first by proposing a settlement agreement, despite the fact that the employee was still on sick leave. The employer then requested the court to terminate the contract. This request was denied by both the subdistrict court and the appeals court. Even after these rulings, the employer failed to follow the company doctor’s advice.
Given these circumstances, the subdistrict court ruled that the employer had engaged in gross misconduct by consistently failing to fulfill its obligation to reintegrate the employee into her role. Additionally, the court found the employer’s failure to resolve the workplace conflict to be seriously blameworthy. As a result, the court ruled that the employment contract had to be terminated due to a disrupted working relationship caused by the employer’s gross misconduct and negligence.
When an employer engages in gross misconduct, the employee may request the court to award fair compensation. In this case, the employee sought compensation equivalent to three years’ salary (€443,916 gross).
When determining the amount of fair compensation, the court considers the severity of the employer’s misconduct, the financial and professional impact of the dismissal on the employee, and other relevant circumstances. Factors such as the expected duration of the employment contract and the employee’s prospects of securing alternative income are also taken into account.
The court ruled that if the employee had been able to start reintegration on time and if the employer had made the necessary efforts to resolve the workplace conflict, the employment relationship would likely have continued for a significant period. The employee had greatly enjoyed working for the employer.
The court also noted that the job market for clinical chemists is competitive, with many professionals trained and only a limited number of permanent positions available.
Furthermore, the court considered it likely that the employee’s dismissal would harm her reputation, making it difficult for her to find a comparable job within the next two years. As a result, she risked losing her professional registration, further complicating her job prospects. Given these circumstances, the court deemed fair compensation equivalent to three years’ salary appropriate.
In this case, the employer failed to fulfill its reintegration obligations for three years. Although gross misconduct by an employer is rare, this ruling highlights the importance of following the company doctor’s advice.
Do you have questions about this article or need advice on a similar case? Feel free to contact us.
Rechtbank Noord-Holland, 8 mei 2024, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:1856.
