Introduction
Transgressive behavior in the workplace comes in various forms, but when a supervisor uses his position of power to enforce a (restored) private relationship, ethics and labor law are directly affected. A recent case focused on just such a situation: a warehouse manager tried to revive a terminated affair, abused his position and ultimately lost his job. How did the judge rule? And why did this not lead to summary dismissal, but did lead to dissolution without compensation?
From affair to abuse of power
The case began with a love affair between two co-workers. After the breakup of this relationship, the dynamics in the workplace changed. The male employee was promoted to warehouse manager shortly thereafter. He then engaged in conspicuous behavior:
- he did not keep working hours and took long breaks,
- leave requests he approved or disapproved depending on whom he allowed,
- he threatened to "punch colleagues in the mouth" if they complained.
Towards his former partner it went further: he continued to insist on resuming the relationship, spoke negatively about her towards the director, forbade her contact with colleagues and threatened to resign.
The notification and summary dismissal
The employee eventually filed a complaint with the manager. As a result of this report, the warehouse manager was summarily dismissed. The employee challenged this dismissal, including video evidence in which the employee stated that she had made everything up.
But: this turned out to be part of a far-reaching manipulation. Prior to the video, the employee had made an audio recording in which she stated that she had been pressured to videotape the false confession. This revealed the truth and undermined the employee's defense.
Judge's verdict
The judge found the employee's behavior seriously culpable. As a manager he had abused his position of power, intimidated colleagues and tried to put the employee under pressure. This was judged to be very serious behavior, especially given his role as a role model and the insecurity he created in the workplace.
Yet the instant dismissal was not declared legally valid. Why? Because the employer had waited more than 20 days to dismiss after the facts were known. By law, a summary dismissal must follow "without delay" upon discovery of the culpable conduct. That deadline had been exceeded here.
Dissolution without compensation
Although the summary dismissal did not stand, the judge decided to dissolve the employment contract anyway. There was serious culpable conduct, which meant that the employee was not entitled to transitional compensation. The judge took the position of power, threatening behavior and attempt to influence heavily.
Conclusion
This case shows that a relationship in the workplace is not prohibited, but the consequences can be far-reaching if it goes wrong, especially when there is a position of power and undue influence. Managers have a role model function, and if they abuse that function, it can lead to far-reaching legal consequences. Even if the summary dismissal does not formally stand, the employment contract can still end without compensation.
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. Please feel free to contact us .
April 2025
