For many companies, the annual Christmas party is a highlight of the year - a time to celebrate achievementts and close the year on a a festive note with colleagues. It also provides an opportunity to connect with coworkers in an informal setting and take a break from the workplace routine. However, in practice, these festive gatherings do not always end on a celebratory note. Unfortunately, they can sometimes result in dismissals - occasionally even summary dismissals. Is such an outcome justified? And where do we draw the line between enjoying a festive drink and engaging in unacceptable behavior? Below, we outline several legal rulings to illustrate how such situations can (and should not) be handled under Dutch law.
Three bottles of alcohol at end-of-year drinks cost supermarket manager his job
A Lidl supermarket manager consumed alcohol during a year-end party held at the store, despite an explicit prohibition by the employer. The employee had organised the gathering for himself and his colleagues in the staff canteen. Although a fellow manager had made it clear in advance that drinking alcohol was strictly forbidden, the employee claimed that “having a drink was simply part of the occasion.” Further complicating matters, three bottles of alcohol consumed during the party were found to have been taken from the store without proper inventory deduction.
The employee was subsequently dismissed with immediate effect. He challenged the dismissal in court, but to no avail. The Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court ruled that the summary dismissal was justified. The court determined that the employee had violated Lidl’s zero-tolerance policy, as outlined in the employee handbook, employment contract, and workplace rules. Additionally, the employee admitted to a fellow manager that alcohol had been consumed during the year-end party and that he was aware this was prohibited. The court rejected the employee’s defence, finding that the testimonies of colleagues provided a reliable account of events. As a result, the summary dismissal was upheld.
Drinking and driving after a Christmas party ends in justified dismissal
An employee at a transport company caused a traffic accident after driving home under the influence following the annual Christmas party. Earlier that day, he had agreed with a colleague to sleep in one of the company’s trucks to avoid driving after the party. This arrangement was confirmed by the company’s co-director, who entered the conversation and approved the plan. Despite this agreement, the employee chose to drive home after the party, resulting in a single-vehicle accident. The incident caused damage to both his car and a third party’s vehicle. The employee claimed to have no recollection of the accident and was brought home by a passerby who also alerted the police. A breath test revealed an alcohol level exceeding 2 ‰ - four times the legal limit. The following morning, the employee’s spouse informed his colleagues about the incident via the company’s group chat. On Monday, the employee was summoned by the co-director to explain himself, and a few days later, he was summarily dismissed.
The employee contested the dismissal in the subdistrict court, which ruled that the summary dismissal was justified. The court noted that the employee’s role involved educating drivers about safe driving practices, including the risks of alcohol consumption. Given his role as a safety coach and trainer, the employee was expected to lead by example and maintain a credible reputation. Following the incident, this credibility was deemed irreparably damaged.
The employee appealed the decision, but the appellate court also upheld the dismissal. The court rejected the employee’s argument that his duties were limited to advising on fuel efficiency. It emphasised that the company placed significant importance on promoting safe driving and preventing alcohol-related risks through training and monitoring. While the employee’s primary focus was fuel conservation and damage prevention, his role also carried a responsibility to exemplify safe driving behaviour. The court further dismissed the employee’s defence that the accident occurred in his private time, stressing that the alcohol consumption had taken place during a work-related Christmas party. Additionally, the employee had breached prior agreements by choosing to drive under the influence. Considering the severity of his intoxication and the significant risks posed by his actions, the dismissal was upheld as valid.
#MeToo incident at a Christmas party: no grounds for summary dismissal?
During a Christmas party, a ProRail employee consumed alcohol and subsequently harassed a female colleague with offensive and hurtful remarks. He also touched her multiple times, despite her repeated requests for him to stop. A team leader eventually intervened, and the employee was sent home. Following the incident, several discussions took place involving the employee, the colleague in question, and other witnesses. As a result of the incident and further investigation, the employee was summarily dismissed.
The employee challenged the dismissal in the subdistrict court, arguing that his actions did not constitute grounds for summary dismissal and that the subsequent investigation was conducted carelessly and in violation of internal regulations. He also contended that the dismissal was disproportionate. ProRail, however, maintained that the dismissal was justified and proportionate given the severity of the employee's behaviour and the company’s zero-tolerance policy on such matters.
The court acknowledged ProRail’s obligation as an employer to provide a safe working environment and to combat unacceptable behaviour like that exhibited by the employee. However, it also ruled that ProRail was required to assess the misconduct based on the factors outlined in its Code of Conduct and weigh the potential disciplinary measures accordingly. The court found ProRail’s reasoning - that the dismissal was justified in light of the #MeToo movement - insufficient. It concluded that summary dismissal was an excessive measure in this case. Instead, a formal warning, potentially combined with a temporary suspension, would have sufficed. This decision was supported by the employee’s clean record during his nearly 40 years of service and his remorse for his actions. The court nullified the summary dismissal.
After a Christmas dinner hosted by a political party in The Hague, several colleagues, including an intern and the press officer, went to a café. When the intern decided to leave for home, she discovered that no trains were running. The press officer offered her a place to stay at his place, and she agreed, trusting his intentions. While walking home, the employee attempted to kiss and touch the intern. The intern rejected and panicked. The press officer then left her stranded in the middle of The Hague. Upon returning home, the intern reportes sick. The following day, the employer held a meeting with the press officer, resulting in an official warning.
Subsequently, the employer requested that the subdistrict court terminate the employee’s employment contract as soon as possible, without awarding a transitional allowance. The employee disputed this request, denying allegations of assault. While he admitted to kissing the intern on her mouth against her will, he denied any further misconduct. He also argued that no fair hearing had taken place and accused the employer of favouring the intern’s account over his own.
The subdistrict court ruled that the employee’s actions did not constitute gross misconduct or serious culpability. However, it concluded that the working relationship had been severely damaged to the extent that continuation of the employment was no longer viable. The court dissolved the employment contract but determined that the employer was still obligated to pay the employee a transitional allowance.
Unjustified dismissal despite inappropriate touching and ear licking
An ABN AMRO employee engaged in misconduct during a Christmas party held at a café. Following a corporate outing, the employee and several colleagues continued to socialize at a nearby bar at their own expense. That evening, the employee consumed excessive alcohol and only recalled fragments of the night. A female colleague subsequently filed a complaint about the employee’s behaviour. She alleged that he had inappropriately touched her and other female colleagues without their consent. Additionally, the employee reportedly placed an arm around a colleague who was leaving and licked her ear. A similar incident occurred a year and a half prior, involving other colleagues, but no formal complaint was filed at that time. After this second incident, the employer summarily dismissed the employee.
The employee contested the dismissal, arguing that it was a disproportionate sanction. He claimed that the incident took place during his private time and involved a colleague from outside his team. He also noted that he had not received prior warnings, apart from a single discussion about the earlier incident. Moreover, the employee expressed a desire to speak with the colleague before his dismissal, which ABN AMRO declined to facilitate. ABN AMRO defended its decision, emphasizing that the employee held a managerial position, making colleagues feel dependent on him. The employer asserted that the employee should have been aware of the risks due to the prior incident, and dismissal was the only appropriate response.
The subdistrict court, however, did not classify the employee's actions as sexual harassment. The court considered that the incident occurred in a crowded café among numerous colleagues where the complainant felt safe. It also noted that the employee was visibly intoxicated and that the colleague was able to easily distance herself by going to the restroom. The court concluded that there was no urgent cause for summary dismissal. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the significant financial consequences of summary dismissal for the employee, who otherwise performed his duties well. ABN AMRO was ordered to compensate the employee for lost wages and legal costs. However, the request for reinstatement was denied, as the employee had irreparably lost the respect of his colleagues.
Conclusion
Celebrate responsibly! Christmas parties can be a fun and festive way to close the year, but excessive alcohol consumption often causes more harm than good.
Do you have questions about an employment law dispute, whether related to a Christmas party or otherwise? Or do you have another employment law inquiry? The employment law team at SPEE advocaten & mediation is here to assist you!
The team at SPEE advocaten & mediation also wishes you a wonderful holiday season and a successful and healthy new year!