News

Court bans unilateral COVID-inspired salary decrease of 25%

The Sub-District court of Amsterdam had to give a ruling about a unilateral salary decrease of 25% based on an expected loss of turnover due to the COVID crisis. The employee in question did not accept such decrease. The employee was then officially warned and banished from his team. The court dissolved the employment relationship as it was considered distorted. The court further decides that the employee is entitled to a fair compensation, seeing that the employer acted in a seriously imputable manner. Actually, the employer had failed to adequately substantiate the salary decrease proposal and when the employee refused to accept the proposal, abruptly isolated the employee with the official warning and removal from his team.

Court bans summary dismissal by reason of self-quarantine

Another matter brought before the court of Noord-Holland concerned an employee going into self-quarantine with his family following the advice of his GP in March last. The employee’s wife has a chronical disease and started experiencing COVID-related complaints. The employee and his son were also sick for a while, as a result of which the employee had to look after his ill son as well. At a certain moment, the employer wants the employee to resume his work. The employee refuses to comply. This is sanctioned with an official warning. Further, the employer immediately decides to cease payment of the employee’s salary and summarily dismisses him. However, the court does not hold up the summary dismissal as the employee cannot be imputed for temporarily being unable and unwilling to come to work under the given circumstances (including the COVID advices from the govenrment and the employee’s GP and the particular situation at home). Consequently, the employee is entitled to his salary up to the end of his employment.

Court bans summary dismissal for hugging and not keeping the 1.5 meter distance

A third court decision also involved a summary dismissal. This matter concerned an employee who wanted to hug a colleague, while the latter recoiled by reason of the COVID measures. Afte this incident the employee stayed close to the colleague and did not keep the 1.5 meter distance. After having been called to account, the employee was summarily dismissed by his employer. The grounds for this dismissal were alleged threat and attempt of (aggravated) assault. In the past, the employee also had already received an official wanring for his actions/conduct. Although the employee could be expected to comply with the (basic) measures imposed to prevent the COVID virus from spreading, the Sub-Court of Rotterdam found – given all circumstances – that a summary dismissal was too drastic. To that end the court considered inter alia that the employee had been working for the employer for almost 34 years, other employees did not respect the 1.5 meter distance either and the conduct of the employee did not have any impact on his colleague’s health.

FAQ

The government has published an overview of frequently asked questions about the corona virus for employers. Various topics are discussed, for example about how to deal with (whether or not compulsory) working at home or at the office, holidays and expenses. Click here for an overview of the questions and answers.