Termination after concealing a second job

This question lies at the heart of a recent legal case where an employee was terminated for failing to disclose a second job at a beauty salon.

The case

The employee had been working for the Municipality as a management assistant since 2010, with a full-time contract of 36 hours per week. In March 2022, a request for termination from the Municipality was denied, but shortly after, the employee became fully incapacitated. It was only later that the Municipality discovered the employee had a second job at a beauty salon in Groningen, working 24 hours a week. Despite requests for transparency, the employee refused to share information about this secondary employment, leading to a new termination request in 2024.

Termination request

The Municipality based its termination request on the employee’s blameworthy conduct. The court agreed to terminate the employment contract effective August 1, 2024, determining that the employee had acted not only blameworthy but even seriously blameworthy. As a result, her request for a transition payment and a fair compensation was denied.

Blameworthy conduct

The appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision, confirming that the employee’s conduct was indeed blameworthy. The obligation to disclose secondary employment was applicable, especially given her full-time status and the additional hours she was working at her second job. The court ruled that the Municipality could not be held responsible for the inability to continue the employment relationship under these circumstances.

Prohibition of termination during illness

The employee argued that the prohibition of termination during illness should apply, but the court ruled that the reason for termination was not related to her incapacity to work. The concealment of her secondary job was a standalone reason for termination.

Reinstatement

The court found that reinstatement was not an option due to the employee’s blameworthy conduct. However, it also ruled that the employee was entitled to a transition payment, as her actions were not considered seriously blameworthy. Factors such as her financial difficulties were taken into account.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of transparency in the employer-employee relationship. Employees need to be aware of their obligations to disclose secondary employment, especially when it may impact their primary job responsibilities. The court’s ruling confirms that while there can be serious consequences for withholding information, not all blameworthy actions result in the loss of rights, such as the right to a transition payment. This case offers valuable lessons for both employees and employers about communication and transparency in the workplace.

More information

Do you have any questions regarding this subject or do you need advice about employment law? Please feel free to contact us.