Two cases for the history books

The Labour Court has made two judgments concerning grounds for dismissal.

In the first case, a telemarketer worked for a telemarketing company where he was supposed to hit a monthly sales budget and make at least 250 call attempts per day. After a year of not achieving his monthly budget or call attempts, the employee was dismissed. Before the dismissal, the company had issued two written warnings over the course of five months, an action plan and instructions on how to do the work.

In the second case, a warehouse worker who was a union representative had not met his targets. The targets were to pick 80 items an hour and have one hour of non-working time per day. Just before the dismissal, the employee had, on average, 0.70 items picked per hour and 7.63 hours of non-active working time. Before the dismissal, the company had issued four written warnings over the course of five months, and an action plan.

Clear communication was key

The Court concluded that there were objective grounds for the dismissal in both cases.

A key component was that both companies had issued several warnings, and the employees were given reasonable time to improve. The decisive factor for the telemarketer was that he had refused to obey orders or follow instructions and, therefore, breached his employment contract. The main factor for the warehouse worker was his non-active working time. It did not matter that he was a union representative.

IUNO’s opinion

The cases are the first to investigate the grounds for dismissal since the main agreement and following reform of the EPA in 2022. The cases show that, despite the changes, the assessment is not too different from before.

IUNO recommends companies have clear internal guidelines for dealing with dismissal in the event of poor performance. With the right process, objective grounds are significantly easier to prove. This often includes warnings which, depending on the case, can require multiple. Following up and instructing the employee in how to improve the performance can also be necessary.

[The Labour Court’s decision of 9 and 16 October 2024 in cases 75/24 and 78/24]