Publication date: 30 October 2019
If an employer wants to dismiss an employee, he must check whether one of the nine statutory grounds for dismissal is applicable. The list of reasonable grounds is limitative: other grounds are not permitted. The ground must be “mature”, i.e. the ground must fully justify the dismissal.
If an employer wants to dismiss an employee, he must check whether one of the nine reasonable grounds (a-i) set out in the law applies. The list of reasonable grounds is limitative: other grounds are not permitted. The ground must be “mature”, i.e. the ground must fully justify the dismissal. If there is such a ground, the employer must check whether the employee can be reassigned before the dismissal procedure is started.
The ground for dismissal determines which procedure must be followed. For a and b you have to go to the UWV, for c up to and including i to the subdistrict court. Dismissal without the permission of the UWV or the subdistrict court is only permitted in the event of dismissal with immediate effect. However, this falls outside the scope of the scheme of grounds for dismissal.
This is the case when jobs disappear as a result of reorganisation, restructuring, or termination of the company or part of the company. The job must then disappear for at least 26 weeks.
After 2 years of illness, an employee can be dismissed due to incapacity for work. However, it must be clear that there is no chance of recovery or performing adapted work within 26 weeks.
If an employee is unable to work due to sickness or disability, he or she may be dismissed. However, it is required that the absence must have unacceptable consequences for the employer’s business operations. This applies, for example, to small businesses that have difficulties in coping with irregular absenteeism of employees or to employees whose presence is essential to the business operations, but who are difficult to replace on call. In addition, the absenteeism cannot be the result of insufficient care on the part of the employer with regard to working conditions. Here too applies that there is no chance of recovery or performing adapted work within 26 weeks.
Even if the employee is healthy, he may be incapable to perform his work. For instance, if he is repeatedly unable to perform tasks or if he is not able to obtain diplomas that are required by law. The employer must first warn the employee and give him the opportunity to improve his performance, for example by means of a plan of action. Inadequate performance may not be the result of insufficient care or training on the part of the employer.
Sometimes even an employee who is capable to perform his work does things that cannot be tolerated. Or does not do things. Think, for instance, of safety measures that are neglected, despite repeated warnings. This ground does also include negative comments about the employer on social media. Then the employer in all reasonableness cannot be expected to continue to employ the employee. The bar for imputable acts or omissions is high, but lower than the bar for dismissal with immediate effect.
The employer must take into account serious conscientious objections on part of the employee. However, sometimes these conscientious objections prevent the performance of the agreed activities. Think of a refusal to perform work on Sundays in a shift work or a builder who refuses to construct a nuclear plant. In such cases, the subdistrict court may terminate the employment contract.
Except for the previous grounds for dismissal, it may happen that the employer and employee simply do not get along anymore. A classic example is the affective relationship between employer and employee that is on the rocks. Another classic is the employer who wants to get rid of the employee and is aiming for the dismissal or departure of the employee, for example by an unjustified dismissal with immediate effect. There may also be a breach of trust as a result of imputable acts or inadequate performance that is, however, not severe enough for the termination of the employment contract. If the employer can be seriously blamed for the disturbed employment relationship, the court may grant the employee a fair compensation, in addition to the transition compensation.
The remaining ground contains all other grounds that are sufficient to dismiss an employee. This includes, for instance, a difference of opinion with a director about the policy to be followed or not getting government clearance to work at Schiphol Airport. This remaining ground or safety net provisions is not meant to “repair” another, insufficiently motivated, ground for dismissal.
On the basis of the i-ground, several grounds for dismissal that have only partly materialized may be combined. An example is an inadequately performing employee, where the employer abandons the improvement process because the employment relationship with the worker has been disturbed. Only grounds c up to and including h may be combined.
Do you want to dismiss an employee and know whether your reason for doing so forms a sufficient ground? Or do you want to know what other possibilities you have to terminate the employment contract? Please contact us:
In which cases is an employer allowed to dismiss an employee with a permanent employment contract? What does he have to take into account? And what rules apply to employees who intend to terminate their employment?read on
What may or may not be included in an employment contract, what do the various provisions mean and what do you have to bear in mind?read on
What must employers keep in mind regarding a work culture where everyone feels comfortable? What are the legal rights of pregnant employees and employees with children? Our lawyers Eileen Pluijm and Priscilla de Leede answer these questions in their article in Lady Justice, the magazine of the Women Lawyers Section of Primerus.read on
What rights does the works council have in relation to measures against the coronavirus within the company? And what role does the works council play with regard to the (im)possibility of mandatory vaccination against the coronavirus?read on
According to the Amsterdam District Court, Uber drivers are employees. Therefore, they are covered by the collective agreement of the taxi industry with all associated rights and obligations. How did the District Court reach this judgement? And what does it mean for other forms of platform work?read on
In this article, we will discuss several questions and challenges in the field of Dutch employment law, tenancy law and contract law during COVID-19.read on
Do the new rules of the Supreme Court for the assessment of employment contracts also have consequence for management agreements? Case law has not decided yet. This can be seen from the judgments of the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal and the District Court of Midden-Nederland about the management agreement of the CFO of Volksbank.read on