A company closes a branch in the Netherlands and opens one in the United Kingdom. Employees are given a dismissal permit. But what happens then regarding the relocation obligation?
A Scenario
A technician works on a temporary contract with a maintenance and repair company for private aircrafts as of February 1, 2016, together with four other colleagues. Prior to that, he worked on a fixed contract at another company. The business outlook for 2016 is good, so he is told. A technician’s contract will be converted into a fixed contract after a year. However, soon after hiring him, in the spring of 2016, the company decided to open a new branch in the United Kingdom. The Dutch branch closed and for all the 70 employees, the company had a dismissal permit.
Compensation Provided by Employer
The technician would receive €3,500 on the basis of the social plan and an additional fee of €14,800. The other colleagues who came to work in February also received the final compensation. There was no mention of relocation but the employees could apply at the new branch. Only two colleagues would be accepted. The technician had applied for an international job with a company located in Austria. But just before signing his contract there, the offer was withdrawn. It appeared that his former employer took over that company and objected to his employment.
The employee went to court and demanded a fair compensation of €70,000. He believed that his former employer has acted illegally. There was no reasonable ground for termination and repositioning was possible.
How Did It End?
The judge awarded the technician the fair compensation. The court found it plausible that this was a business move and not a business closure. Therefore, the employer had to investigate whether the technician could be repositioned in the United Kingdom. The court also concluded that if there was already a reasonable ground for the resignation, then relocation within one of the employers' businesses was possible. Finally, it is clear that it was impossible that the relocation was not possible.
Restoration of the labor agreement is no longer possible, both parties do not want it anymore. The judge checked if the problem lay with the employer. He had acted legally because he gave the employee a fair compensation. Also, the judge found out that the employer had not warned the employee of the company’s uncertain future. In addition, the employer had torn up the new employment relationship.
Compensation
A fair compensation must be paid in relation to the value of the lost job. Because the employer had not disputed that the employee missed €70,000 due to the loss of his job, the requested compensation was granted. The amounts already paid were deducted, so that the employee now received €51,700 from the employer.
Conclusion
It is clear from this judgment that the relocation obligation must not be taken lightly before a notice is given. Companies need to seriously and thoroughly investigate whether an employee can be relocated to a suitable position, and an employee needs to know his own rights in such a situation.
Translated by Asta Kerkhoven
Source:
https://www.xperthractueel.nl/ontslag/herplaatsingsplicht-is-voldoende-als-werknemer-solliciteert-naar-nieuwe-functie/