A Limburg company that fired an employee because she was not always present ten minutes before the start of her work has been reprimanded by the subdistrict court. If it is so important for employees to be present earlier, the judge says the company should also pay for it.
In April of this year, the woman started working for distribution company Dimass from Haelen. That company handles the handling and shipping of orders for web shops.
Previously present
According to the company’s house rules, employees must be present 10 minutes before the start of their working hours. This would be necessary in order to receive instructions from the manager, so that the services can connect seamlessly.
The employee was regularly not present at the desired time and had been repeatedly warned about this by her employer. When the company approached the woman again at the beginning of September, she said: ‘well, then fire me’, or ‘fire me then’.
No reason for dismissal
That happened. On September 2 she was fired on the spot. The woman then went to the judge, who agreed. According to the subdistrict court in Roermond, the woman’s behavior is no reason for an immediate dismissal.
“If Dimass believes that the presence of the staff 10 minutes before the start of the work is essential (…) this should also be reflected in the payment of that time to the employees. It concerns regular working hours.”
Payment 6000 euros
Because the Subdistrict Court declared the dismissal null and void, Dimass has to pay the woman her salary for September and October, plus course costs, a severance payment and legal costs. In total she will receive almost 6000 euros. The woman has since found other work elsewhere.
Dimass director Peter Walraven is not concerned about the lost cause. “We wanted to get rid of that employee for several reasons. She had suffered damage in the warehouse for 13,000 euros and had already worn out about seven laptops. But because that is no reason for dismissal, we were looking for a stick to hit the dog with. ”
Hitting dog
According to Walraven, the former employee would often not have started her work on time either. “That is wrong in the statement, because we have not clearly stated it in the letter of resignation. That costs us some money now. But that’s fine, because we are glad that we are so rid of it.”
On the Dimass website, the company prides itself on the way it treats its employees. “We do corporate responsibility on various fronts”, the company writes.
“We create good working conditions for our employees, are committed to our society and are happy to contribute to sustainability.”
