{"id":5911,"date":"2025-04-18T15:45:06","date_gmt":"2025-04-18T12:45:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/can-a-director-be-fired-if-she-does-not-support-the-safety-policy\/"},"modified":"2026-08-16T15:45:10","modified_gmt":"2026-08-16T12:45:10","slug":"can-a-director-be-fired-if-she-does-not-support-the-safety-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/can-a-director-be-fired-if-she-does-not-support-the-safety-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Can a director be fired if she does not support the safety policy?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

How far does a director\u2019s responsibility extend when it comes to complying with and promoting safety policies? And what if that same director does not agree with those policies? A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal in The Hague<\/a> makes it clear that this responsibility carries significant weight, especially in an executive-level position. In this case, a safety director was terminated without a severance package because <\/a>she did not support her employer\u2019s COVID-19 policy. In this blog, we discuss the background, the lawsuit, and the implications of this ruling. <\/p>\n\n

Background: COVID-19 Policy Within an Internationally Operating Company<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

The employer in this case is a contractor in the energy sector that is active in ship salvage operations. Due to the company\u2019s international nature, it was essential during the COVID-19 pandemic that employees on ships be vaccinated. This was not only an internal policy but also a practical necessity, as many countries where the company operates had mandatory vaccination requirements. <\/p>\n\n

The safety director was responsible for promoting and monitoring the organization\u2019s safety policy. The employer therefore expected her not only to support the policy but also to get vaccinated herself. The director took the position that she was willing to get vaccinated if and to the extent that being vaccinated was necessary for her job. According to her, this was not yet the case at the time of the meeting on October 20, 2021, because she was primarily working from home and did not need to travel. <\/p>\n\n

Vaccine Hesitancy and Internal Communication<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

The director made a conscious decision not to get vaccinated with the mRNA vaccine that was available at the time. She stated that she wanted to wait for a protein-based vaccine, which she considered safer. She did share this decision with her team, but not with her employer. It was precisely this that was held heavily against her. Had she been honest with her employer, the employer might still have been willing to sit down and discuss the matter with her. <\/p>\n\n

According to the employer, as director of safety, she should have supported the policy publicly, regardless of her personal beliefs. Furthermore, her reluctance would undermine the credibility of the company\u2019s safety policy. <\/p>\n\n

Negotiations fail; the case goes to court<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

The employer initially tried to resolve the matter with a settlement offer, including a severance payment of \u20ac200,000. The director rejected this offer, after which the case went to court. The dispute did not center on her right to her own opinion, but on her lack of transparency toward the employer and her failure to demonstrate loyalty to company policy. <\/p>\n\n

Court of Appeals Ruling: No Right to a Transition Payment<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

The Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that the director of security had a role model responsibility in her position. A person at that level can be expected to report in a timely and clear manner if she does not agree with security policy. The court ruled that she had seriously failed in this regard. <\/p>\n\n

Because the employee\u2019s conduct was deemed culpable and led to an irreparable breach of trust, the employment contract was terminated without the award of a transition payment.<\/p>\n\n

Importance for Employers and Employees<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

This ruling is relevant for organizations with policies addressing sensitive social or health issues. Especially in leadership roles, employees are expected not only to act loyally but also to communicate openly about potential conflicts with the policy. For employees, the rule is: if you cannot support the employer\u2019s policy, you must discuss this in a timely manner, especially if you are responsible for promoting it. <\/p>\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

With this ruling, the Court of Appeals confirms that integrity, loyalty, and transparency are fundamental values at the executive level. A failure to support the security policy, combined with a lack of openness toward the employer, may justify termination without severance pay. This demonstrates once again how important it is to communicate early on when fundamental differences of opinion arise within a position that requires a high degree of authority. <\/p>\n\n

\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n

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\u2014with his practical and personalized approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to learn more? Visit Stijn’s page<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

Arbeidsadvocaat.nl is happy to help you if you have any questions about termination. Please feel free to contact us <\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

April 2025<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction How far does a director\u2019s responsibility extend when it comes to complying with and promoting safety policies? And what if that same director does not agree with those policies? A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal in The Hague makes it clear that this responsibility carries significant weight, especially in an executive-level position. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":5912,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"navigation_state":true,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5911","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-exclude"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5911","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5911"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5911\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5912"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5911"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5911"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5911"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}