In a recent ruling by the Arnhem-Leeuwaarden Court of Appeal, the question was whether an employer can also invoke a prohibition on termination. An interesting ruling since most employers will not do this quickly. In this case, the employer obviously had another interest: he did not want to pay the transition compensation.
It concerned a healthcare institution that employed a large group of workers in the Cleaning Support Department. The institution had a concession with several municipalities until the end of 2016 for carrying out cleaning work in home care under the WMO. Because the activities of this department proved to be seriously unprofitable, it was decided to discontinue them, and the municipalities were informed that they would no longer be bidding at the next concession.
With permission from the UWV, the (more than 100) employees were then dismissed. All employees subsequently claimed the transition compensation based on the collective labor agreement Transition Compensation VVT. As of January 2, 2017, many of these employees started working for the new concession holder. The care institution argued that it was unacceptable that the transition compensations had to be paid while the employees had effectively retained their jobs, but the subdistrict court ruled against them: the transition compensations had to be paid according to the collective labor agreement.
The employer appealed and tried to undo the termination. Without termination, the compensation would not have to be paid. Among other things, it was argued that the termination was in violation of the prohibition on termination in case of transfer of business. That did not hold with the Court. The institution had not argued or substantiated that it terminated the employment contract solely in connection with a transfer of business, and this did not at all follow from the established facts.
