In a ruling dated 15 December 2025, the subdistrict court ruled that an employer had not acted with sufficient care in investigating alleged inappropriate behaviour by an employee in a managerial position. The request for termination on the grounds of culpable conduct on the part of the manager in question was therefore rejected, but the employment contract was terminated on the grounds of a disrupted working relationship.

Facts

The employee was employed by the employer in the position of regional director. Within the organisation, there were concerns about his management style. Employees reportedly experienced his leadership style as dominant, intimidating and inappropriate. As a result, the employer conducted an internal investigation and subsequently submitted a request for termination to the subdistrict court.

The employer took the position that the employee had acted culpably. According to the employer, the employee's behaviour had created an unsafe working environment, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship. Various written statements from employees were submitted in support of the request for termination.

The employee/manager put forward a reasoned defence. He disputed that there had been any inappropriate behaviour and argued that the investigation had been conducted improperly. In his view, there was a lack of concrete facts, there had been insufficient hearing of both sides of the argument and the employer had jumped to conclusions.

Assessment of the request for termination

The subdistrict court judge stated first and foremost that allegations of inappropriate behaviour, especially when directed against an employee in a managerial position, must be carefully investigated and substantiated with concrete evidence. An employer can be expected to clearly establish what behaviour the employee is accused of, when exactly this behaviour took place and against whom it was directed.

In this case, the subdistrict court ruled that the investigation conducted by the employer was inadequate. According to the court, the statements submitted mainly contained generalities and subjective qualifications, such as the use of terms such as “dominant” and “intimidating”, without any concrete factual elaboration. Moreover, many statements were based on hearsay. There was little insight into what the persons making the statements had actually experienced or observed themselves.

In addition, the subdistrict court considered it important that the employee had not been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself against the accusations in a substantive and concrete manner. The required application of the principle of hearing both sides of the argument was therefore insufficiently guaranteed. According to the magistrate, the employer acted too hastily and concluded too quickly that there had been culpable conduct.

On this basis, the request for termination on the so-called e-grounds was rejected.

Termination due to a disrupted working relationship

Although, according to the subdistrict court, there was no culpable conduct within the meaning of the law, the subdistrict court did consider the employment relationship to be permanently and seriously disrupted. The conflict between the parties had led to a situation in which fruitful cooperation was no longer possible. The subdistrict court therefore dissolved the employment contract on the grounds of a disrupted employment relationship.

In its assessment, the subdistrict court took into account that, despite the inadequate substantiation of the investigation, it was difficult to imagine that the dominant management style described by employees was completely unfounded. At the same time, it could not be established that this behaviour was so concrete and serious as to constitute serious culpable conduct.

Fair compensation

The employee had requested fair compensation of €1,700,000. The subdistrict court largely rejected this request, but did award a lower amount of fair compensation, namely €128,500.

In determining the amount of fair compensation, the subdistrict court took into account that the employer had seriously failed in its duty of care in conducting the investigation and had thus played an important role in the emergence and escalation of the conflict. On the other hand, even with a more careful approach, the employment contract would not have continued indefinitely. The subdistrict court judge considered it plausible that the employment relationship would probably have continued for a maximum of one more year, given the tensions within the organisation.

Read the full decision here .

Conclusion

This ruling shows that allegations of inappropriate behaviour cannot be based on general impressions, qualifications or statements “heard through the grapevine”. Particularly in the case of serious allegations, the employer has a heavy obligation to conduct a careful investigation, establish the facts and actually hear both sides of the story.

For employers, this means that great restraint is required when drawing far-reaching conclusions based on incomplete investigations. For employees, the ruling shows that defending against insufficiently substantiated allegations can indeed be promising. At the same time, it appears that termination remains possible if the employment relationship has been permanently disrupted, even if culpable conduct has not been proven.

The employment law solicitors at SPEE advocaten & mediation advise and assist both employers and employees in internal investigations into (alleged) inappropriate behaviour, integrity issues and complex termination processes. Legal diligence, strategic advice and risk management are central to this. If you have any questions about the structure of an investigation, an ongoing dismissal process or the legal position of those involved, we will be happy to assist you with specialised employment law advice.