The case
The 63-year-old worker has been a notarial assistant employed by a notary office since 1993. From the moment the worker was affected by a partial disability, meaning they had to work fewer hours, the employer began to act inappropriatly and in an unacceptable manner towards her. This behaviour consisted of unacceptable language, swearing, cursing, ranting, and statements such as 'I'll harass you out of this job,' 'Hey, you work here, and “I still have three years with that woman.” Also, the employee that has thrown the employer files at her feet.
Through the actions of her employer, the employee has been fully disabled since June 15, 2015. Since this, the employer has refused to follow the advice of the occupational health physician.
The employer states that his Greek blood 'and the accompanying southern character' made his emotions play faster. Otherwise, the employer denies that the above actions have taken place and that the advice of the occupational health physician, which includes the involvement of a mediator, was not followed because this would only have a temporary effect on the situation rather than solve it.
The court
The Subdistrict Court held that there is a disturbed working relationship and that a short-term employment contract should end now the employer is guilty of indecent and offensive behaviour, leading to a seriously culpable acts or omissions. This gives the magistrate the right to grant a transition fee and fair compensation to the employee.
Considerations
In this case, the magistrate considered the that unseemly and hurtful behaviour of the employer means that there is a seriously culpable acts or omissions. The magistrate takes his judgment that, despite several requests from the occupational health physician and the (representative of) the employee, the employer failed to resolve the dispute in an adequate manner.
The employee is, in addition to the transition allowance, paid fair compensation of € 50,000, - gross. In determining the fair compensation, the Subdistrict Court considered the following circumstances:
the employee who has been employed for over 22 years, has never had her performance criticised;
the actions of the employer is so insulting that the worker is forced to terminate the employment contract;
the financial consequences for the worker are significant because they were not up to the official retirement age of 66 years, and thus could continue working, though would suffer the loss of salary pension;
it is unlikely that the worker, now that she is partially disabled, will find work elsewhere.
Subsequently, the magistrat submitted a calculation of the expected loss of income and pension which was drawn up by a tax consultant. The calculation is not disputed by the employer.