In a recent ruling by the Rotterdam Court, a request by the employer to terminate an employment contract was rejected. The case, which involved an employee with more than 30 years of service, offers important perspectives for employers, particularly in the area of redeployment. The employee, a work-study teacher, faced the challenge of retaining his position after his job was made redundant due to company closure. The employer argued that there were no other opportunities within the organisation and therefore requested the subdistrict court to terminate the employment contract.
The case
The employee, who had worked as a work-study teacher with the Enver Foundation since 1 September 1991, faced a request to terminate his employment contract. Enver argued that his job had lapsed due to the termination of activities at 'De Loods', a welding and engineering workshop for young people. Despite the employee's long service, and the initial rejection by the UWV for business economic reasons, Enver decided to request the subdistrict court to terminate the employment contract. The employee opposed this this request, arguing that there was a prohibition of termination due to illness and that other suitable positions were available within Enver.
Judgment of the court
- No prohibition of termination due to illness
The subdistrict court concluded that there was no incapacity for work due to illness at the time of the dismissal request. This opinion was based on the findings of the company doctor, which were to be considered leading.
- Insufficient redeployment efforts
The subdistrict court did rule that Enver did not fulfil its redeployment efforts, a condition for being allowed to terminate an employment contract (Section 7:671b (2) of the Dutch Civil Code). The court stressed that the employer had taken too little initiative to find alternative suitable positions for the employee, especially given his long service of more than 30 years.
- Lack of in-service training.
The court further criticised Enver for failing to provide in-service training to the employee. According to new regulations, since 2015 an SKJ registration was required for all Enver employees who worked with young people, but an exception was then made for the employees in 'De Loods'. According to the court, Enver should have retrained the employee in a timely manner, increasing his employability for other positions within the organisation. Enver's failure to retrain the employee during more than 30 years of employmentconstitutes a breach ofits duty to act as a good employer. The fact that the employee was not employable in another position after a long tenure because he did not yet have an SKJ registration was therefore the responsibility and risk of Enver, according to the court.
Conclusion
The ruling by the Rotterdam Court underlines the importance of being a good employer, especially in cases of long-term employment. Failure to comply with redeployment obligations and lack of training can lead to legal and financial consequences for the employer. This case serves as an important reminder for employers to constantly evaluate their human resources policies and to adapt them to changing circumstances and regulations.
It is therefore important to ensure regular training of employees to maintain and improve their employability. This can help ensure both organisational continuity and job security for employees.
Questions about the retraining and redeployment obligation in the context of being a good employer? The employment law lawyers at SPEE advocaten & mediation are ready to answer them!