28 May 2018

When the employment relationship derails

By Seliz Demirci

Tensions between supervisors and employees occur in the best organisations.

Sometimes these tensions escalate to the point that the rest of the team may be disturbed, and the cooperation is no longer sustainable. Often several attempts are made to restore the employment relationship, but if these attempts do not result in an acceptable solution, there is no other option than to go to court for termination of employment.

Cause of the commotion

The employment relationship between an IT specialist and his employer was central to a recent decision. Following a change of function within the organisation, the employee was no longer allowed to make use of a company car. The employee did not agree with this change and initiated a lively discussion. Subsequently, following consultation with all employees, the organisation introduced an evening shift. The employee in question did not agree with this change either, and caused a lot of commotion. As this employee held a managerial position, his criticism of the changes also influenced his team.

Uncovering the full situation

After internal investigation, it turned out that the employee had been sending various work-related files and e-mails to his private email address for years. This was in violation of his confidentiality clause with the organisation. The employee refused to provide an explanation for these actions, at which point he was moved to non-active duties. Despite the fact that the employee was by then in an improvement process, the employer found the above events so serious that he no longer wanted to maintain the employment contract. The employer therefore requested the judge to terminate the employment contract on grounds of a disrupted employment relationship.

Irritation and escalation

The district court judge ruled that there were insufficient grounds for termination of employment, but the Court of Appeal ruled that there was indeed a disturbed employment relationship and that the employment contract could therefore be terminated.

An important consideration in this decision was that the employee’s behaviour: he could not accept decisions that did not suit him and he kept coming back to them. This behaviour was clearly evident in the content, the tone and the continuous flow of e-mails sent by the employee. The judge ruled that it was understandable that this behaviour had caused irritation to the employer. Furthermore, it turned out that colleagues also avoided the employee and that the trust of both parties was gone.

According to the court, in such a situation an employer cannot be required to maintain the employment contract. The employee in this case did not agree with the Court of Appeal’s finding and eventually the case was taken to the Supreme Court.

Recrimination

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal’s decision. In a remarkable statement, the Supreme Court added that for an employment relationship to be considered “disrupted” as grounds for termination does not require that the employee is accused. Termination of employment on grounds of disturbed employment relationship is also possible if the employer has contributed to the disturbed relations. However, the judge will take this into account in his decision to terminate the employment contract. The employer may then also owe a fair compensation to the employee.

Link: Decision of the Supreme Court

Supreme Court, 16 February 2018, ECLI (abridged): 220

This article appeared earlier in Rendement.

 

Dealing with a difficult employment relationship?

If you are facing a similar issue, you don’t have to do it alone. GMW has a team of expert lawyers who can help you work it work. You can submit your question online.

 

 

Related blogs

Previous slide
Next slide

17 September 2026

Dismissal for lying about working from home

Incorrectly registering a workplace can constitute an urgent reason for summary dismissal. The Rotterdam District Court recently confirmed this in a judgment. The case concerned an employee of online bank Bunq. Over a period of three months, the employee stated 21 times that he was working from the office in Rotterdam, while other data showed that he was not at the office.

Read more

Read more about

3 September 2026

Employer, may I move to a competitor?

Many employers include a non-compete and/or non-solicitation clause in their employment contracts. If an employee wants to work for a client or a competitor of the employer, and the employer does not allow this, the employee may feel compelled to take the matter to court. That was also the case in a ruling by the Zeeland-West Brabant Subdistrict Court in May 2025.

Read more

Read more about

27 August 2026

Works council and right of consent for changes to home working policy

Around the summer of 2025, two judgments were published on a highly topical issue: changes to home working policy. From the United States, a trend seems to be spreading to the Netherlands in which companies are trying to force employees to work from the office more often, or even full-time.

Read more

Read more about

13 August 2026

New Act on Transfer of Undertakings in Bankruptcy (WOVOF): consequences for employees and restart entrepreneurs

Some time ago, a blog was published on our website about the protection of employees in a restart following bankruptcy. It was relevant then and remains a topical issue now, as the Act on the Transfer of Undertakings in Bankruptcy (Wet Overgang van Onderneming in Faillissement, WOVOF) is approaching.

Read more

Read more about

16 July 2026

Love in the workplace: employment law considerations

Cupid does not let his arrows be guided by HR policies. That situations of love at the work place do not always come without consequences became clear again after the Coldplay concert end of 2025.

Read more

Read more about
All articles