{"id":6148,"date":"2025-04-15T07:38:49","date_gmt":"2025-04-15T04:38:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/serious-misconduct-costs-zuidas-office-e175000\/"},"modified":"2026-08-16T15:46:49","modified_gmt":"2026-08-16T12:46:49","slug":"serious-misconduct-costs-zuidas-office-e175000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/serious-misconduct-costs-zuidas-office-e175000\/","title":{"rendered":"Serious misconduct costs Zuidas office \u20ac175,000"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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

A law firm in the Zuidas was ordered to pay a substantial sum to a notary-in-training following a dispute over job performance and a strained working relationship. The court ruled<\/a> that the firm had acted in a seriously culpable manner. In this blog, you can read exactly what happened and why the firm\u2019s conduct was unacceptable. <\/p>\n\n

The Case: From Bonus to Exit<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

A senior notary candidate had been employed at a large law firm in the Zuidas for six years. In 2023, she received another positive performance review and a bonus. While there was some criticism of her professional performance, nothing indicated any immediate problems. <\/p>\n\n

In the summer of 2023, the situation changed: the notary candidate had to sit in on a partner\u2019s office and was given some areas for improvement. She was also called out on the low number of billable hours. <\/p>\n\n

In April 2024, however, she was suddenly given a \u201cneeds improvement\u201d rating and was immediately told that there was no longer a future for her at the firm. She was offered a settlement agreement. <\/p>\n\n

Escalation: From Mediation to a Wage Freeze<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

The notary candidate disagreed with the negative evaluation, in part because it lacked justification. She did not respond to the proposal to terminate her training. <\/p>\n\n

The firm then attempted to provide an explanation and propose mediation, but since it was purely a matter of exit mediation, the candidate notary refused. The firm then stopped paying his salary and filed a petition with the labor court to have the employment contract terminated on the grounds of a disrupted working relationship or poor performance. <\/p>\n\n

The judge ruled that the relationship had indeed been disrupted, in part because the notary candidate himself no longer wanted to return.<\/p>\n\n

Ruling: grossly negligent conduct on the part of the employer<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

The judge terminated the employment contract but awarded the notary candidate substantial compensation:<\/p>\n\n