Dismissal on the spot is the most severe measure that the employer can take, which immediately ends the employment contract. The employer must therefore exercise due care and consider all the circumstances of the case before initiating dismissal on the spot. Failure to do so can entail considerable costs
Refusal to work can be a reason for summary dismissal. Not always when an employee does not comply with a request from the employer, there is a refusal to work, which means that the employment contract should end immediately. For example, case law shows that there does not have to be a refusal to work if:
- the employee has reasonable and justified reasons to refuse certain tasks;
- the employee has first attempted to discuss the matter with the employer and find alternative solutions before refusing the task;
- the refusal is due to temporary inability, such as illness or injury, and the refusal is not intentional.
On September 18, 2023, the Court of First Instance in Curaçao ruled on a summary dismissal due to refusal to work.
According to the dismissal letter, the employee was summarily dismissed for refusing to work. The employee was allegedly reminded of the assigned work several times by the employer and also displayed inappropriate behavior. At the time of dismissal, the employee was 51 years old, had been employed for eight years and had a good track record.
The employee was responsible for purchasing as an office manager, including water bottles that were distributed to customers. The employer decided from one day to the next that the employee had to fill wine bottles that the employer brought from home with tap water and then serve it to customers and colleagues. The employee refused to do this, as the tap water was contaminated and the employer had not yet done what was necessary to have the pipes cleaned. Moreover, refilling water was not part of her job description.
The judge ruled that the negative consequences for the business operations of the refusal to refill water bottles were not in proportion to the negative consequences for the employee of the immediate loss of income. In addition, the duration of the employment, the fact that refilling was not part of the employee's job description and her good performance also played a role in reaching the conclusion that the summary dismissal was null and void.
The court therefore ruled that the summary dismissal was not legally valid, meaning that the employer must pay outstanding wages and default interest.
The employer also requested the court to terminate the employment contract if the summary dismissal had not been validly given. The court can terminate the employment contract for urgent reasons or a change in circumstances. In the present situation, the court ruled that there was a breach of trust (change in circumstances) as a result of which the employment relationship could indeed no longer be continued. The employer had indeed contributed to this breach of trust and therefore had to pay a fair compensation of Naf 40,000.
Summary dismissal is very casuistic and it is important that you as an employer act carefully. This also applies to employees who are confronted with summary dismissal. It is therefore important that you are well informed before you act.
Need advice on a dismissal procedure? Contact contact Contact us for advice and dismissal guidance.
About the authors
