Termination by employer

When it appears that an employee resign, but there exists doubts about his wordings, it is the employers’ task to find out what the employee exactly meant. Some employees do not understand the extent of resignation out of free will and others do this due to heave emotions. The employer is obliged, based on good employership, to find out what the employee meant exactly and whether he unambiguous has the intention to terminate the employment contract.

How does it work with the resignation by an employer?

The resignation of an employment contract is in principle without criteria. High requirements do exist when an employee resigns, because this has severe consequences for this employee. High standards apply. When an employer resigns, this high standard however does not apply. The question therefore arises how (un)clear and (un)ambiguous the resignation by an employer can be. On the 20th of February 2015 the Supreme Court has issued a ruling in which this question came forward.

The case dealt with an employee who was employed at a school for the past 30 years, of which he was the rector for the last year. After his retirement the employment relationship was continued and his rectorate was extended twice for a year. In February 2014 the rector received a letter in which he was thanked for his rendered services. In this letter the following paragraph was obtained:

“The past school year you, as retired, have provided your services and cooperation to the secondary education. According to the need in the education we could ask you once again to assist us. We hope that you will be available again, when asked.”

The employer found that this paragraph was sufficient to let the rector know that his employment contract would not be extended. Moreover it was not excluded that his service could be requested in the future. The employee himself did not find that this letter was a proper notice of termination of the employment contract.

The Supreme Court did however decided that, although the term “termination” or likewise was not used, the employee could have derived from this letter that termination was at hand. The Supreme Court did not find it hard to conclude from the gratitude that was transferred in the letter, that the employment relation also would end. The fact that the Employers Insurance Agency did not have to give permission for the termination of the employment relation, did also play a role in this decision.

It can be concluded that there exists a difference in the clarity and ambiguity of the resignation between employees and employers, where employees must be crystal clear and employers do not. The employee must therefore read letters from his employer very thoroughly and understand what is begin meant. With the introduction of the Employment Security Act this extra vigilance is requested of employees, because resignation by an employer cannot be quashed outside court. It is mandatory for a judge to do this and the employee must go to court within two months after the termination of the employment relation, in order to quash the resignation or claim restoration of the employment contract. When he does not do this and it later can be established that the resignation by the employer was unclear after all, the employment contract still be terminated.

Especially because of the relatively short deadlines it is wise to, when you come in such a situation as employee / employer, to call for legal advice. When you have questions, please contact Suzanne van Dijsseldonk LLM.