Introduction
A Zuidas office had to pay a candidate notary a substantial compensation after a conflict over performance and a disrupted working relationship. The judge ruled that the firm had acted in a seriously culpable manner. In this blog you can read what exactly was involved and why the way the firm acted was unacceptable.
The case: from bonus to exit
A senior notary candidate had been employed by a large Zuidas office for six years. In 2023, she still received a positive evaluation and a bonus. There was some criticism of her substantive performance, but nothing to indicate any immediate problems.
In the summer of 2023, the situation changed: the candidate notary had to sit in a partner's room and was given some points for improvement. She was also held accountable for the low number of billable hours.
However, in April 2024, she suddenly received a "needs improvement" assessment and was immediately told there was no future for her at the firm. A settlement agreement (vso) was offered.
Escalation: from mediation to wage freeze
The notary candidate disagreed with the negative assessment, in part because substantiation was lacking. She did not respond to the termination proposal.
The firm then tried to explain and suggest mediation, but because it was purely exit mediation, the prospective notary refused. The firm then stopped salary payments and went to the subdistrict court to have the employment contract terminated because of a disturbed working relationship or dysfunction.
The judge ruled that the relationship had indeed been disrupted, in part because by now the prospective notary himself did not want to go back either.
Verdict: serious culpability of employer
The judge dissolved the employment contract, but awarded substantial compensation to the notary candidate:
- €150,000 in equitable compensation for the employer's grossly culpable actions.
- 6 months of back pay with a 25% increase due to the wrongfully stopped wage payment.
Total compensation came to about €175,000 gross.
The judge stated that the firm had increased the pressure for termination "inappropriately and in violation of good employment practice." The practice was sharply criticized.
Criticism of office culture
The office culture also came under heavy fire. The judge found it unacceptable that comments such as "stupid" and "hat" were made and that even a hat was awarded as a trophy. This behavior, according to the judge, did not fit within good employment practices and contributed to the seriously culpable conduct.
Conclusion
This ruling shows that building pressure toward termination without proper substantiation or decent treatment carries risks. Unprofessional manners and failure to comply with good employment practice can lead to substantial damages. Carefulness in assessment and communication remains essential.
This blog was written by mr. Stijn Blom, employment lawyer at Arbeidsadvocaat.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and supports entrepreneurs and employees on a daily basis with a variety of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight contracts and regulations - with his practical and personal approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to know more? Visit Stijn's page.
Arbeidsadvocaat.nl is happy to think with you if you have questions about dismissal (compensation). Please feel free to contact us .
April 2025
