Labor law regulates the rights and obligations of employees and employers. A recent court case shows how important it is to make clear agreements and show good leadership. This also applies to changes in a function or improvement processes.
In this case, an employee disagreed with the start of the improvement process, in which her activities were temporarily limited. She saw this as a downgrade in function, which was unilaterally determined by the employer and had a significant impact on her standing and reputation within the organization.
What was the dispute about?
The employee felt that the employer had unilaterally imposed a disciplinary measure, in which her position and duties had been downgraded to a lower level (demotion). She felt that this change damaged her mental health and reputation and therefore wanted to return to her old position immediately. In particular, the feeling that her reputation within the organization had been damaged was an important argument that she put forward.
The employer believed that there was no demotion, but that she had agreed with the employee in question to follow an improvement program. This program was intended to help the employee perform better after previous mistakes in her work. During this program, her range of tasks would be limited, also for support. The employer emphasized that her job title and employment conditions had remained the same and that the improvement program was temporary.
Despite the fact that the employer's lawyer had pointed this out to the employee's lawyer and had emphasised that a discussion was possible to resolve underlying disputes, the employee turned to the Court and initiated summary proceedings.
What did the Court decide in the summary proceedings?
The Court dismissed the employee's requests. The Court found that the employee did not have sufficient evidence for the facts presented and that the employer had entered into a solid process with the employee. The improvement process was seen as a tool to perform better and not as a negative measure or a demotion from her position.
The Court also found that the employee failed to make it clear why she had to immediately return to her old position, especially since she was still receiving her full salary and her job title had not changed.
The employee was also reprimanded for choosing summary proceedings over the conversation with the employer. The employee's lawyer was also addressed on this.
The employee, as the losing party, was also ordered to pay the legal costs. Her employment contract, which was also only temporary, was not extended by the employer.
Importance of good employee leadership
Good leadership is translated in law as the obligation to behave as a good employer. This obligation also applies to the employee.
This case shows how important clear and supportive leadership is. The employer has shown good leadership by offering an improvement path for the employee instead of immediately opting for a demotion or disciplinary measure. If the employer had not done this, the employee could well have been proven right in the procedure.
Customized advice
This article was written by mr. Didi Wildeman. She specializes in employment law and likes to think along at the earliest possible stage to prevent conflicts. Should it nevertheless come to a procedure, as in this case, then she will of course be happy to assist you.
Our office helps with, among other things:
- drawing up and checking employment contracts
- drafting and assessing termination agreements (settlement agreements)
- illness and reintegration
- disciplinary measures
- dismissal and negotiations on severance pay
- reorganizations, mergers and acquisitions
About the authors
Didi Wildeman
