Introduction
Can an employer fire an employee because she asks critical questions about the organization’s policies? And what if the employer bases the termination on grounds that turn out to be unfounded? A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal in ’s-Hertogenbosch centered on precisely this issue. In the end, the employee was not only found to be in the right but was also awarded substantial compensation. This case highlights the importance of due diligence in dismissal proceedings and the protection of outspoken employees who ask critical questions.
The situation: asking questions leads to job loss
The employee worked for TP Vision, a company that manufactures and sells audio and video products worldwide under the “Philips” brand. Within the company, she and several colleagues raised critical questions about certain management positions. Instead of having an open discussion about this, she was summoned to meet with senior management, where she was told that her position was being eliminated.
UWV Refuses to Approve Dismissal; Employer Continues Search
The employer requested permission from the UWV to terminate the employee’s employment on business grounds. The UWV rejected this request because it was insufficiently substantiated. The employer then took the matter to the subdistrict court, where it cited no fewer than four other grounds for termination.
The employee didn’t let it go: on her own initiative, she approached fourteen colleagues and managed to record their responses (in secret) and use them in the legal proceedings. The judge did not hold this against her; in fact, it helped her case.
Court’s ruling: dismissal was unjustified and due to gross negligence
The subdistrict court judge ruled that the employer had not sufficiently demonstrated that the position had in fact been eliminated. The other grounds for termination also did not hold up. It appeared that the employee was primarily “let go” because she dared to ask critical questions.
According to the court, the employer had thus acted in a seriously culpable manner . The employee was awarded:
- a transition payment of €18,500,
- and fair compensation of €55,000.
The judge gave the employer another chance to rescind the termination and reinstate the employee. If the employer does so, it will not have to pay the compensation.
What can we learn from this?
This ruling makes it clear that employees have the right to ask questions and express critical views within the organization without this leading to termination. Employers who attempt to “silence” critical employees risk substantial financial penalties, especially if the termination is not properly substantiated.
Furthermore, the case shows that even if an employee takes the initiative themselves (such as gathering statements), this does not necessarily work against them. Provided it is done carefully, it can actually help establish evidence of misconduct.
Conclusion
A critical attitude in the workplace should not be grounds for termination. Employers who attempt to do so must take into account the strict requirements set by the courts as well as the risk of having to pay substantial compensation. This ruling reaffirms the importance of transparency, careful substantiation of grounds for termination, and respect for employees who constructively voice their concerns by asking critical questions.
This blog was written by Stijn Blom, Esq., an employment law attorney at Arbeidsadvocaat.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and assists employers and employees on a daily basis with a wide range of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight agreements and policies—with his practical and personalized approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to learn more? Visit Stijn’s page.
Arbeidsadvocaat.nl is happy to help you if you have any questions about termination. Please feel free to contact us .
April 2025