The scheme's explanation must be assessed according to the Haviltex standard.

Imagine: you have met a target and are counting on a nice bonus, but when the time comes, the scheme turns out differently than you thought. Should your employer have informed you better? And if they did not, does this automatically mean that the scheme should be interpreted in your favour? Or you are an employer and notice that an employee is applying a broader interpretation of the bonus scheme than you intended. Should you still award the bonus, just because you did not explicitly communicate all the conditions? The Supreme Court issued an important ruling on this on 13 December 2024. The conclusion: even if an employer does not fulfil their duty to provide information, this does not automatically mean that the employee is in the right.

What happened in this case?

An employee believed he was entitled to an additional financial reward based on an internal bonus scheme. However, the employer had not explicitly explained this scheme to him, which led to uncertainty about the exact conditions. The employee argued that this uncertainty should be interpreted in his favour, partly because the employer had not fulfilled his duty to provide information.

The employer disputed this and argued that the regulation should be interpreted differently and that the employee did not meet the correct conditions. This led to a legal discussion: does the fact that an employer has been unclear outweigh the intention and reasonable expectations of both parties?

What does the Supreme Court say?

The Supreme Court ruled that: .

• A violation of the employer's duty to inform does not automatically lead to an explanation in the employee's favour.
• The explanation of the regulation must be assessed on the basis of the Haviltex standard. This means that the following is considered:
• What the parties could reasonably have expected from the regulation;
• What meaning they could reasonably attribute to it;
• All relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

.
In other words, if the intention of the scheme does not correspond to what the employee thought it was, the employee cannot simply rely on the fact that the employer did not fully comply with its duty to provide information. The explanation continues to depend on the specific circumstances.

Read the ruling here.

What does this ruling mean for you?

This ruling has important consequences for both employers and employees:

For employees: .

• Your employer must properly inform you about the conditions of a bonus scheme. But if this has not been done properly, it does not automatically mean that you are entitled to the bonus.
• If you are unsure about the explanation of a scheme in your contract, have an employment law specialist look at it before drawing any conclusions.
• If you have a dispute about your bonus or another employment condition, it is important to properly substantiate why your interpretation is reasonable.

.
For employers: .

• Make sure that bonus schemes and other employment conditions are clearly documented in writing to avoid misunderstandings.
• Communicate proactively about the conditions and limitations of a scheme so that employees know where they stand.
• Are you confronted with an employee who interprets the scheme differently from how you intended? Then this ruling is a great help, provided you can demonstrate what the parties could reasonably have expected, but be sure to consult a specialised employment lawyer as well.

.
The following applies to both employers and employees: it comes down to what the parties could reasonably expect, and not just what has or has not been explicitly communicated.

Do you have doubts about your/a bonus scheme?

At SPEE advocaten & mediation, we have years of experience in labour law and help both employers and employees with legal issues regarding bonus schemes and other employment conditions. Feel free to contact us for expert advice! Contactpage SPEE advocaten & mediation.